Unveiling Religious Tolerance among Indonesian Christian Youth: How Do Personality Traits and Intrinsic Religiosity Orientation Matter?

Unveiling Religious Tolerance among Indonesian Christian Youth: How Do Personality Traits and Intrinsic Religiosity Orientation Matter? | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Unveiling Religious Tolerance among Indonesian Christian Youth: How Do Personality Traits and Intrinsic Religiosity Orientation Matter? Marselius Sampe Tondok, Dinda Aulia Safitri This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In a pluralistic religious society, fostering religious tolerance is crucial for promoting understanding and respecting differing perspectives. Various personal factors that influence religious tolerance include religious orientation and personality type. This study examined the relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation, personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability), and religious tolerance among Christian students toward their Muslim peers. Using a cross-sectional survey design with quota-accidental sampling techniques, 402 Christian students, aged 18–24, and enrolled in Christian-affiliated, public, and multicultural universities in Surabaya, participated in this study. Data collection utilized three scales: the Religious Orientation Scale, Religious Tolerance Scale, and IPIP-BFM-25. Through multiple linear regression analysis, the study demonstrates that both intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits significantly influence religious tolerance [ F (6,401) = 68.140, Adj. R 2 = .501, p < .001]. Partial analysis indicates that both intrinsic religiosity orientation and certain personality traits, including extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, exert a significant influence on religious tolerance. In contrast, personality traits linked to intellect and emotional stability demonstrate no significant correlation. These insights provide valuable guidance for fostering religious harmony within diverse societies. Religious Studies Psychology Christian youth interreligious relations multicultural society personality traits religious tolerance Figures Figure 1 Introduction Ongoing discrimination and intolerance toward religion and belief systems represent a significant global challenge to religious diversity. In today's interconnected world, discussions surrounding "freedom of expression" often target specific religions or beliefs, leading to heightened intolerance and negatively impacting global peace. These contentious dialogues underscore the importance of fostering tolerance in intergroup relations, particularly those rooted in social identity, such as religion. Scholars (e.g. Blasi et al., 2023; Matviyets et al., 2023; Verkuyten et al., 2023) highlight the crucial role of tolerance in promoting mutual understanding and appreciating differences among various social identities. Tolerance in intergroup relations serves as a vital mechanism for mitigating various forms of discrimination, especially against minority groups striving to assert their rights as equal human beings. Researchers (e.g. Musbikin, 2021; Prakoso & Najicha, 2022; Verkuyten et al., 2019), demonstrates that intergroup tolerance also acts as a protective shield against acts of violence. In this context, religious tolerance emerges as an indispensable component of modern social life. Scholars (e.g. Tondok et al., 2022; Van Tongeren et al., 2016) emphasize the growing importance of fostering religious tolerance to navigate the complexities of contemporary societal dynamics. As societies grow more diverse and interconnected, fostering religious tolerance becomes essential for preserving social harmony and peaceful coexistence (Gurin et al., 2013; Leong et al., 2023). By advocating for tolerance in intergroup interactions, individuals and communities can cultivate inclusive environments that honour and celebrate differences (Aderibigbe et al., 2023; Malović & Vujica, 2021). Furthermore, nurturing religious tolerance not only protects the rights and dignity of every individual but also helps construct resilient and cohesive societies equipped to confront the diverse challenges of the contemporary world (Ezzy et al., 2020). Religious Tolerance Religious tolerance can be defined as the willingness to respect and accept different religious beliefs and practices, allowing individuals or groups to express their faith freely without fear of discrimination, persecution, or hostility, while promoting peaceful coexistence and understanding among diverse religious communities (Mustafa & Khan, 2023). In line Witenberg (2019), tolerance is defined as "resilience," involves acknowledging that others may hold different opinions and practices but does not necessitate any form of endorsement by embracing these differences (Witenberg, 2019). Religious tolerance entails a willingness to respect and embrace diverse religious beliefs and practices, allowing individuals or communities to express their faith openly without encountering discrimination, persecution, or hostility, thus promoting peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding among various religious groups (Mustafa & Khan, 2023). In line with this concept, Witenberg (2019) defines tolerance as embodying resilience, acknowledging that others may hold different views and practices without necessitating one's endorsement or adoption of those differences (Witenberg, 2019). According to Witenberg (2019), religious tolerance encompasses three key elements: fairness, empathy, and reasonableness. Fairness entails treating others equitably and acknowledging the diversity of perspectives as integral to life. Empathy refers to an individual's capacity to understand and resonate with the feelings, viewpoints, and struggles of others. Reasonableness involves making judgments based on logical and rational considerations when interacting with those who hold different beliefs. Religious tolerance is a matter deeply intertwined with students. Students represent the future generation of the nation and hold the promise of a nation’s future, as they will assume leadership roles and serve as agents of social transformation (Khakim et al., 2020). Therefore, equipping students with comprehensive education through knowledge and firsthand experiences is imperative in addressing intolerant attitudes and embracing the nation's diversity, fostering coexistence and tolerance among religious communities. Hence, formal education, including higher education, thus assumes a pivotal role in instilling values of mutual respect, empathy, and solidarity with fellow humans, transcending diverse social identities (Hughes, 2017; Raihani, 2014; Rockenbach et al., 2020; Tondok et al., 2022). Religious Orientation The body of knowledge has demonstrated that religious orientation is a significant antecedent to religious tolerance (Altınoğlu, 2018; Matviyets et al., 2023; Muhid, 2020; Van Tongeren et al., 2016) Religious orientation denotes the motivations driving individuals when they participate in religious activities, and it can be classified into two main categories: extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967). Intrinsic religious orientation, as opposed to extrinsic orientation, plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' tolerance and their alignment with their religious beliefs or acceptance of their religion's teachings (Allport & Ross, 1967; Koenig & Büssing, 2010). An individual's religious background and their propensity for tolerance are shaped by their intrinsic religious orientation, which is grounded in their interpretation of their faith's values (Allport & Ross, 1967; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Lubis & Sianipar, 2022; Sözer & Eskin, 2023). Intrinsic religious orientation represents a deep internalization of religious beliefs beyond mere attendance at religious gatherings. Those with intrinsic religiosity embrace their faith's practices and teachings because of their personal conviction, rather than external pressures or desires for social status or validation. They find meaning and fulfillment in their religious beliefs and practices, deriving comfort, guidance, and a sense of purpose from them (Allport & Ross, 1967; Cohen et al., 2017; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005). Conversely, individuals with extrinsic religious orientation may perceive religion as a means to accomplish their objectives, such as obtaining social recognition or fitting in (Allport & Ross, 1967; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005). This might explain how having intrinsic religious orientation might lead to better outcomes compared to extrinsic orientation. Earlier research suggests that individuals characterized by intrinsic religious orientation exhibit higher levels of tolerance and lower levels of prejudice and discrimination toward an outgroup compared to those with an extrinsic religious orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967; Duck & Hunsberger, 1999; Muhid, 2020; Zainiddinov, 2024). Personality Trait Earlier research has indicated that individuals exhibiting either tolerance or intolerance commonly display distinct traits within their personalities (Dudin et al., 2018; Sabdin & Ikhwan Izzat Zulkefli, 2023). Tolerance, as a trait, can manifest in diverse situations, even when clarity or personal advantage is lacking. An individual's personality significantly shapes their religious beliefs, influencing their ability to demonstrate tolerance towards other religions, regardless of the perceived benefits (Matviyets et al., 2023; Verkuyten et al., 2023; Witenberg, 2019). Personality refers to “the enduring set of traits and styles that a person exhibits, which characteristics represent dispositions of this person, and ways in which this person differs from the standard normal person in his or her society” (Bergner, 2020). These patterns serve as the psychological framework that maintains consistency across different situations and persists over time (Sinclair et al., 2020). Within this expansive framework, personality traits represent enduring attributes that indicate an individual's consistent inclinations and preferences in behavior (Haehner et al., 2024). Personality assessment can be approached through various methods, with one prominent perspective being the personality trait approach. The big five personality trait model stands as one of the foremost recognized frameworks for understanding personality (Chen, 2024; Mann et al., 2020; Roberts & Yoon, 2022). This psychological framework evaluates an individual's personality based on the Big Five Personality Traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992). The Big Five Personality Traits encompass five overarching dimensions of personality. Extraversion characterizes individuals who exhibit outgoing, sociable, and energetic tendencies, often seeking social interactions and feeling comfortable in group settings. Agreeableness signifies traits of compassion, cooperation, and consideration towards others, with those scoring high demonstrating empathy, trust, and a willingness to aid others for fostering harmonious relationships. Conscientiousness denotes traits of organization, responsibility, and self-discipline, with diligent individuals being dependable planners striving for success. Intellect, also known as Openness to Experience, reflects a predisposition towards embracing new ideas, experiences, and intellectual pursuits, where intellectually curious individuals express an appreciation for art, culture, and abstract thinking. Emotional Stability, or Neuroticism, measures susceptibility to negative emotions such as anxiety or depression; individuals scoring high demonstrate emotional resilience and composure, while those scoring low may encounter mood fluctuations and emotional distress (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992). Interreligious Relations Context in Indonesia This study was conducted in Indonesia, a country known for its religiously diverse population and distinguished by its national ideology of 'Pancasila' and motto of 'Unity in Diversity’ (Ardi et al., 2021). Situated in Southeast Asia, Indonesia ranks as the world's fourth most populous nation, boasting over 270 million inhabitants. Moreover, the country comprises 17,000 islands and is inhabited by 1,340 distinct ethnic groups speaking 733 different languages (Mu’ti, 2023). Indonesia officially recognizes six religions, including Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, alongside various other belief systems and ancestral religions (Wijaya Mulya & Schäfer, 2023). Religion plays a pivotal role in Indonesian society, influencing social interactions and daily routines (Al Qurtuby, 2023). It stands as a fundamental pillar of Indonesia’s state ideology, with mandatory courses on individual religions in both public schools and universities (Mulya and Aditomo, 2019). The population of Indonesia, totaling 270 million, comprises approximately 86.93 percent Muslims, 7.47 percent Protestants, 3.08 percent Catholics, 1.71 percent Hindus, 0.74 percent Buddhists, 0.03 percent Confucians, and 0.05 percent adherents of other belief systems and ancestral religions (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2022). In the context of interreligious relations in Indonesia, religious tolerance is evident in the long history of coexistence and mutual respect among diverse religious communities, which is rooted in the national ideology of 'Pancasila' and the motto of 'Unity in Diversity. However, instances of religious intolerance, fueled by political and social factors, persist, posing challenges to the harmonious interreligious relations in the country. Historical conflicts between the two major religions, Islam and Christianity, have often stemmed from issues related to religious conversion. The dissemination of religions, characterized by Islamization and Christianization, remains a sensitive topic among Muslims and Christians in Indonesia (Kanas et al., 2017; Putra & Wagner, 2017; Tondok et al., 2024). Therefore, this study focuses on explaining the religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers, considering that Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in Indonesia. Present Study Within the Indonesian context, several previous studies have delved into the connection between intrinsic religious orientation, personality traits, and religious tolerance. For instance, Al Fariz and Saloom (2021) discovered a negative association between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance among Muslim participants from UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Meanwhile, Muhid (2020)conducted a study involving intrinsic religious orientation and the Big Five personality traits as independent variables, encompassing students from six universities in Surabaya, representing diverse religious backgrounds including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Their findings unveiled a significant positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Additionally, personality traits such as agreeableness and openness exhibited a positive correlation with religious tolerance, whereas extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism did not demonstrate a significant association with religious tolerance. Another study by Dhika (2015) involving members of the 'Front Pembela Islam' (FPI or Islamic Defenders Front), a fundamental religious movement in Indonesia, revealed that religious tolerance had a positive correlation with extraversion and agreeableness, but a negative correlation with neuroticism. It did not show significant correlations with openness and conscientiousness. Other research by Meiza (2018) with participants from Islamic Public University Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung found no significant differences in tolerance attitudes based on personality traits. Several previous studies within the Indonesian context have explored the relationship between intrinsic religious orientation, personality traits, and religious tolerance. For example, Al Fariz and Saloom (2021) discovered a negative association between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance among Muslim participants from UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Meanwhile, Muhid (2020) conducted a study involving intrinsic religious orientation and the Big Five personality traits as independent variables, encompassing students from six universities in Surabaya, representing diverse religious backgrounds including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Their findings unveiled a significant positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Additionally, personality traits such as agreeableness and openness exhibited a positive correlation with religious tolerance, whereas extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism did not demonstrate a significant association with religious tolerance. Another study by Dhika (2015) involving members of the 'Front Pembela Islam' (FPI), a fundamental religious movement in Indonesia, revealed that religious tolerance had a positive correlation with extraversion and agreeableness but a negative correlation with neuroticism. It did not show significant correlations with openness and conscientiousness. On the contrary, Meiza's (2018) study, involving Islamic university students from UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, revealed no notable variations in tolerance attitudes linked to personality traits. In spite of several previous studies delving into the impact of intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits on religious tolerance within the Indonesian context, two inconsistent patterns have emerged. Firstly, a discrepancy exists in the correlation direction between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance in studies conducted by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021) compared to Muhid (2020). Secondly, differing findings regarding both the direction and significance of the correlation between personality traits and religious tolerance are evident in studies by Dhika (2015) and Muhid (2020). The inconsistencies in the previous research findings, among the studies of Al Fariz and Saloom (2021), Dhika (2015)), and Muhid (2020), may stem from variations in social contexts and the participants' status as either belonging to the majority or minority group. Al Fariz and Saloom's (2021) and Dhika's (2015) studies focused solely on Muslim participants who constituted the majority within their social setting. Their findings revealed a negative correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Conversely, Muhid's (2020) study included participants from diverse religious backgrounds across six campuses, encompassing both majority and minority-status individuals. Here, the results indicated a positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. These distinctions in social settings and participant demographics are likely influential factors contributing to the divergent research outcomes, underscoring the significance of contextual considerations in exploring religious tolerance and its associated factors. Drawing on prior research and acknowledging the significance of majority and minority statuses, we undertook a study encompassing diverse social contexts, with a specific focus on Christian students in three distinct settings. The first setting was a faith-based university (inclusive of Catholic and Protestant denominations), where Christians held the majority. The second setting involved a public university where Christian students constituted the minority. Lastly, the investigation extended to a multicultural campus characterized by a relatively balanced representation of both Christian and Muslim students. This study aimed to explore the relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) and religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. Drawing from previous studies, we hypothesize the following, as shown in Figure 1: There is a relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) collectively with religious tolerance (major hypothesis/H 1 ). There is a relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and religious tolerance (first minor hypothesis/H 2 ). There is a relationship between extraversion personality trait and religious tolerance (second minor hypothesis/H 3 ). There is a relationship between agreeableness personality trait and religious tolerance (third minor hypothesis/H 4 ). There is a relationship between conscientiousness personality trait and religious tolerance (fourth minor hypothesis/H 5 ). There is a relationship between intellect personality trait and religious tolerance (fifth minor hypothesis/H 6 ). There is a relationship between emotional stability personality trait and religious tolerance (sixth minor hypothesis/H 7 ). Methods Research Design This study employed a quantitative survey research methodology with a cross-sectional design. The purpose was to examine the association between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) in elucidating religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students. Data collection utilized online questionnaires distributed via G-Form. Prior to participation, participants were provided with detailed explanations regarding the research objectives, their rights as participants, and data privacy. Informed consent was obtained to ensure their willingness to participate before completing the questionnaire. Participants and Procedure The participants in this study ( N = 402) were Christian university students (both Catholic, N = 201; and Protestant, N = 201) enrolled in universities located in Surabaya. The characteristics of the study participants were as follows: there were 219 male participants (54.5%) and 183 female participants (45.5%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 24 years ( M = 20.40; SD = 1.36). All the participants were drawn from three distinct subpopulations, each representing different social contexts. The first subpopulation included students from private Christian-based universities (both Catholic and Protestant), where Christian students outnumbered Muslim students. The second subpopulation consisted of students from public universities where Christian students were in the minority compared to Muslim students. Lastly, the third subpopulation comprised students from a multicultural private university where the number of Christian students was roughly equivalent to that of Muslim students and students from other faiths. The participants in this study were chosen from the population through a blend of quota sampling methods and accidental sampling. Quota sampling was employed to ensure an equal representation of Catholic and Protestant participants. The total sample size was 402, with a confidence level of 95%, resulting in a margin of error of 4.84%. We provided informed consent to ensure that participants willingly agreed to participate in this study. Informed consent included a thorough explanation of the research goals, participants' rights, and data privacy before participants were invited to fill out the questionnaire. Measures Religious tolerance. Participants completed the Religious tolerance scale (RTS). This measure initially developed by Witenberg (2019) and adapted in Indonesian context by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021a). The RTS consists of three aspects: fairness, empathy, and reasonableness, each containing 5 items, totaling 15 items. Participants rated each item on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree (1)’ to ‘strongly agree (4)’. The researcher tailored the measurement instrument to fit the context of this study, which focuses on religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students. For instance, an item in the fairness aspect is: "I am willing to accept various ideas from Muslim students." An item in the empathy aspect could be: "I can feel the sadness experienced by Muslim students when they face adversity." In the reasonableness aspect, items include: "I choose to have direct discussions with Muslim students if there are differing opinions or views regarding Islam." The religious tolerance measurement instrument utilized in this study demonstrates a reliability of Cronbach’s α = .82. The religious orientation . Participants filled out the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS ) developed by Gorsuch and McPherson (1989). This scale is based on the two dimensions of religious orientation: intrinsic religious orientation and extrinsic religious orientation, as delineated by Allport and Ross (1967). Consistent with the research objectives, our study focused exclusively on the intrinsic religious orientation subscale, which consists of 8 items. Participants provided ratings for each item using a four-point Likert scale, with options ranging from 'strongly disagree (1)' to 'strongly agree (4)'. For example, one item stated: “I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence.” The intrinsic religious orientation subscale used in this study showed a reliability coefficient of Cronbach’s α = .77. Personality traits. Participants responded to the International Personality Item Pool-Big Five Factor Markers (IPIP-BFM). We utilized the short version of the IPIP-BFM-25 in the Indonesian language, as developed by Akhtar & Azwar (2018). This measurement instrument, originally created by Goldberg (1992), evaluates the Big Five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability. Participants rated each item on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘very inappropriate (1)’ to ‘very appropriate (4)’. Each personality trait comprises 5 items, resulting in a total of 25 items. For instance, an item assessing extraversion trait is: "I usually start conversations with new people." An example item for agreeableness could be: "I care about others." Items representing conscientiousness include: "I perform activities according to a schedule or agenda." The intellect trait features items like: "I have a very vivid imagination." Emotional stability items include: "My mood often changes quickly." The IPIP-BFM-25 Indonesia measurement instrument has demonstrated reliability, with coefficients of reliability for each trait as follows: (1) extraversion with Cronbach’s α = .79, (2) agreeableness with Cronbach’s α = .78, (3) conscientiousness with Cronbach’s α = .80, (4) intellect with Cronbach’s α = .73, and (5) emotional stability with Cronbach’s α = .77. Data Analysis The methodology selected for hypothesis testing involves utilizing multiple correlation and partial correlation analysis with the JASP (Jeffrey's Amazing Statistic Program) version 0.18.3 (JASP Team, 2024). This approach was chosen to evaluate the impact of the six independent variables in the study, both collectively by including all independent variables in the model, and partially by controlling for other independent variables in the model, on the dependent variable. This analytical technique was preferred due to its adherence to various assumptions, including the interval nature of the data, normally distributed residuals, linear relationships between the independent and dependent variables, absence of multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and no autocorrelation. The statistical hypothesis or null hypothesis is rejected if p < .05 (Hair et al., 2019). Results The aim of this study was to investigate how intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) contribute to religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim peers. Prior to presenting the results of inferential testing, an overview of the research variables was provided. Table 1 summarizes the mean ( M ), standard deviation ( SD ) and Pearson’s intercorrelation among variables. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation of Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. RT 3.78 .45 - 2. IRO 3.79 .52 .57*** - 3. E 2.18 .77 .44*** .34*** - 4. A 3.65 .56 .63*** .51*** .43*** - 5. C 3.42 .71 .48*** .39*** .45*** .52*** - 6. I 3.38 .78 .08 .01 .19*** -.02 .52*** - 7. ES 1.68 .68 -.16*** -.25*** -.06 -.26*** -.02 .38*** - Note: RT (religious tolerance); IRO (intrinsic religiosity orientation); E (extraversion); A (agreeableness); C (conscientiousness); I (intellect); ES (emotional stability); * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The raw scores for all variables range from 1 to 4, resulting in a median of 2.5. Table 1 reveals that all variables, except Extraversion and Emotional Stability, have means above the median. The table also displays the correlations between the research variables, illustrating the relationships among the seven variables under investigation. Positive significant correlations were identified among religious tolerance, intrinsic religious orientation, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Conversely, negative significant correlations were observed between emotional stability and the other variables, except for extraversion. Additionally, the personality trait of intellect exhibited no significant correlations with the other variables, except for extraversion. Table 2 . Results of Hypothesis Analysis: F -test and t -test Hypothesis – Independent Variables Religious Tolerance (Dependent Variable) F R Adjusted R² b t H 1 - IRO, E, A, C, I, ES 68.14*** 0.71 0.50 H 2 - Intrinsic religiosity orientation (IRO) .29 6.94*** H 3 - Extraversion (E) .11 2.62** H 4 - Agreeableness (A) .37 7.95*** H 5 - Conscientiousness (C) .14 3.16** H 6 - Intellect (I) .04 .85 H 7 - Emotional stability (ES) .04 1.05 Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The results of hypothesis testing using multiple correlation (F-test) and partial correlation (t-test) analysis are presented in Table 2. The table illustrates the relationship among the six independent variables collectively with the dependent variable to examine the major hypothesis (H 1 ), and partially (t-test) to assess the minor hypotheses, which represent the correlation between each independent variable and the dependent variable (H 2 -H 7 ). The results indicate that the major hypothesis (H 1 ) and minor hypotheses 1 (H 2 ), 2 (H 3 ), 3 (H 4 ), and 4 (H 5 ) are accepted (p .05). The results of hypothesis testing using multiple correlation (F-test) and partial correlation (t-test) analysis are presented in Table 2. The table illustrates the relationship among the six independent variables collectively with the dependent variable to examine the major hypothesis (H 1 ), and partially (t-test) to assess the minor hypotheses, which represent the correlation between each independent variable and the dependent variable (H 2 -H 7 ). The results indicate that the major hypothesis (H 1 ) and minor hypotheses 1 (H 2 ), 2 (H 3 ), 3 (H 4 ), and 4 (H 5 ) are accepted (p .05). Discussion The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits, including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability, and their impact on religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. The findings are discussed as follows. Firstly, the finding from the major hypothesis (H 1 ) test using the F -test in Table 2 reveals that intrinsic religious orientation and the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability collectively correlate with the religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students F (6,401) = 68.14, R = .71, Adj. R 2 = .50, p < .001. This result confirms the acceptance of the major hypothesis (H 1 ) in this study. This research finding aligns with those of Muhid (2020), which demonstrated that intrinsic religious orientation and the big five personality traits are associated with religious tolerance among university students from various religious backgrounds, including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, at the sampled universities in Surabaya. Moreover, according to Table 2, with an adjusted R 2 value of .501, it can be deduced that in this study, intrinsic religious orientation, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability collectively explain 50.1% of the religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students. This indicates that the six independent variables have a large effect size (Cohen, 1988) on religious tolerance. The remaining 49.9%, however, accounts for the influence of other variables beyond these six independent variables. From a theoretical perspective, Sumaktoyo (2017) categorizes the factors influencing religious tolerance into three categories: cultural-theological, institutional, and psychological. Intrinsic religious orientation and the personality traits examined in this study can be classified under the personal-psychological factor. Based on theoretical concepts and prior research findings, subsequent researchers can consider incorporating additional variables from the cultural-theological, institutional, and personal-psychological domains, in addition to intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits. Some of these factors include: religious fundamentalism (e.g. Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017; Saroglou et al., 2020; Sulistio et al., 2020; Yafie et al., 2020); knowledge (e.g. Mansouri & Vergani, 2018); political-social attitude, especially right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Inderasari et al., 2021; Saroglou et al., 2020; Yendell & Huber, 2020) and social dominance orientation (Hewstone et al., 2011; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Yafie et al., 2020); religious socialization (e.g., Bebiroglu et al., 2017; Klingenberg & Sjö, 2019); conservatism religious belief (e.g. Brandt et al., 2014; Brandt & Crawford, 2020; Hunsberger and Jackson, 2005); religious belief/religious schema (e.g. Ardi et al., 2021; Kamble et al., 2014; Streib & Klein, 2014); political orientation (e.g., Cuevas and Dawson, 2021; Kambo & Yani, 2021; Yendell & Huber, 2020); out-group empathy (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008); out-group trust (e.g., Choma et al., 2018; Hodson et al., 2015; Kenworthy et al., 2016; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008); religious identity (e.g. Kambo & Yani, 2021; Kunst et al., 2016; Putra et al., 2021; Sulistio et al., 2020); perceptions of intergroup conflict, especially based on religious identity and resulting in emotional reactions such as intergroup/religious threat (e.g. Greaves et al., 2020; Kossowska et al., 2017; Makashvili et al., 2018; Meuleman et al., 2019; Tahir et al., 2019); intergroup anxiety (Chandra et al., 2022; Inderasari et al., 2021; Meliana & Tondok, 2023; Razpurker‐Apfeld & Shamoa‐Nir, 2020); majority-minority status (e.g. Hassan, 2019; Putra & Wagner, 2017); intergroup contact (Cronshaw, 2021; Kanas et al., 2017; Majid, 2020; Mansouri & Vergani, 2018; McCowan, 2017; Reimer et al., 2020). Secondly, Table 2 shows that there was a highly significant positive correlation between intrinsic religiosity and the religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students [ β = .29; t (401) = 6.94; p < .001]. Therefore, the first minor hypothesis (H 2 ) of this research is accepted. This positive correlation indicates that the higher the intrinsic religious orientation held by Christian students, the higher their religious tolerance towards Muslim students. Conversely, the lower the intrinsic religious orientation of Christian students, the lower their religious tolerance towards Muslim students. These research findings align with Muhid's (2020) study which demonstrated a significant positive relationship between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance [ b = .29, t (401) = 5.29, p < .001]. Intrinsically oriented individuals engage in religious practices and follow the beliefs they hold with full understanding within themselves, rather than due to external pressures, social status, or a desire for external recognition (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Sözer & Eskin, 2023). The positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance is supported by the data presented in Table 1. The table indicates that participants' scores on both variables primarily lie above the median. These research findings are not in line with a previous study by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021), which found a negative correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. This negative correlation could be attributed to the fact that the participants in this study belong to a highly religious group, have limited contact with other groups, and thus may be less open and tolerant towards other religious groups (Sumaktoyo, 2017). The presence of a positive correlation between these two variables can be explained as follows. Intrinsic religious orientation refers to a way of practicing religion that is oriented towards a dedicated and thorough commitment to religion, making this commitment a driving force in one's religious life. In individuals with intrinsic orientation, religious teachings are deeply internalized and followed comprehensively. Moreover, those with intrinsic orientation engage in religious practices and follow religious commandments with a full understanding and commitment that arises from within, rather than being driven by external pressures, social status, or a desire for external recognition (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005). Therefore, the empirical results of this study provide evidence that individuals with intrinsic religious orientation are more open to differences and, as a result, more tolerant towards other religious groups. Thirdly, the findings in Table 2 indicate a relationship between the trait of extraversion and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [ b = .11, t (401) = 2.62, p < .01]. Thus, minor hypothesis 2 (H 3 ) is accepted. This result suggests that the stronger the trait of extraversion in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. The data in Table 1 supports this positive correlation, as the participants' scores on both variables are in the high and very high categories. Theoretically, it can be explained that individuals with the trait of extraversion exhibit characteristics such as being initiative, enthusiastic, sociable, communicative, and expressive (Goldberg, 1992), making them more open to heterogeneous social situations. Therefore, this research aligns with prior empirical studies conducted by Dhika (2015) and Muhid (2020). Fourthly, Table 2 shows a relationship between the trait of agreeableness and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [ b = .37, t (401) = 7.95, p < .001]. This result confirms the acceptance of minor hypothesis 3 (H 4 ). The research findings indicated that the stronger the trait of agreeableness in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. The positive correlation between these two variables is also supported by the data in Table 1, which shows that the participants' scores on both variables were in the very high category. The findings of this study align with theoretical concepts stating that individuals with high levels of agreeableness tend to be friendly, gentle-hearted, generous, cooperative, trusting, accommodating, accepting, warm, and tolerant (Goldberg, 1992). These findings are also consistent with empirical research conducted in the context of Indonesia (Dhika, 2015) Furthermore, this research aligns with Suminta's (2017) study, which found that individuals who exhibit altruistic, patient, and humble behaviors tend to have goodwill and behave honestly toward others. Fifthly, Table 2 indicates a relationship between the trait of conscientiousness and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya, b = .14, t (401) = 3.16, p < .01. Thus, the empirical results support the minor hypothesis 4 (H 5 ) of this research. The positive relationship between these two variables suggests that the stronger the trait of conscientiousness in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. This positive correlation is confirmed by the data in Table 1, where participants' scores on both variables fall into the high and very high categories. Individuals high in this trait typically exhibit characteristics such as being careful and thorough in their work, being controlled, organized, responsible, and having good self-discipline (Goldberg, 1992). These research findings diverge from prior research conducted by Dhika (2015) and Muhid (2020), which found no relationship between conscientiousness and religious tolerance. The difference in these research findings can be explained in two ways. Firstly, in terms of demographic factors, all participants in this study are Christian students. In the Indonesian context, especially in Surabaya where this research was conducted, Christians are a minority compared to Muslims (BPS Surabaya, 2022). This minority status may encourage Christian individuals to be more cautious and controlled in their interactions with other groups and to be more tolerant, especially towards Muslims, who are the majority group in Indonesia. Secondly, from a theological perspective, Christian teachings strive to respond to religious pluralism by promoting faith doctrines that are tolerant of differences (Mangantibe & Taliwuna, 2021). Sixthly, the results in Table 2 indicate that there is no relationship between the trait of intellect and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [ b = .04, t (401) = .85, p = .37, p > .05]. Therefore, minor hypothesis 5 (H 6 ) of this research is rejected. These research findings align with a previous study conducted by Dhika (2015) but differ from the findings of Muhid (2020). Conceptually, individuals with the personality trait of intellect, or what can also be referred to as openness to experience, are imaginative, creative, highly curious, liberal, artistic, enjoy challenges, and have broad perspectives (Goldberg, 1992). The absence of a correlation between openness to experience and religious tolerance in this research may be due to differences in the interpretation of the trait of openness to experience. On one hand, high openness to experience may encourage individuals to be more open and to learn about other religions. However, on the other hand, religious matters and beliefs are currently viewed as sensitive topics for open discussion in Indonesian society (Kurniawan, 2018), especially among minority religious groups, which were the participants in this study. Seventhly, Table 2 shows that there is no relationship between the trait of emotional stability and religious tolerance among Christian students toward Muslim students in Surabaya [ b = .04, t (401) = 1.05, p >.05]. Therefore, minor hypothesis 6 (H 7 ) in this research is rejected. These research results align with the findings of Muhid (2020) but differ from those of Dhika (2015). Data in Table 2 indicates that emotional stability is negatively correlated with intrinsic religious orientation, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while it is positively correlated with intellect. The absence of a correlation between these two variables may be due to inconsistent correlations between emotional stability and the context of religious tolerance. On one hand, in interactions with other groups, individuals with the personality trait of emotional stability, or what is commonly referred to as neuroticism, tend to be anxious, tense, easily agitated, sensitive, exhibit negative moods, be self-pitying, emotional, and susceptible to stress (Goldberg, 1992). However, on the other hand, in the context of religious tolerance, individuals with high emotional stability are more likely to display positive behaviors aimed at avoiding conflict with the goal of reaching a consensus without causing new conflicts (Anwar, 2016). Limitations and Implications Although this research findings indicate the role of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness in explaining religious tolerance among minority religious groups towards the majority in Surabaya, there are several limitations to this study. First, methodologically, this research employed a cross-sectional survey design. Therefore, the results may not entirely demonstrate causality or the influence of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits on religious tolerance. Second, the study focused more on the antecedents of tolerance from personal factors, namely intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits. Despite the significant effect size of the personal factors investigated in this study, future research could explore the impact of cultural-theological and institutional factors on religious tolerance, as proposed by Sumaktoyo (2017). Third, this study focused on identity-based interactions between Christian students and Muslim students, in Surabaya, Indonesia. As a result, the findings may not be entirely applicable to a wider population across diverse religious groups and various social contexts. Future researchers could consider recruiting participants from a more diverse population beyond students. There are several theoretical implications of this research that demonstrate the role of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) in explaining religious tolerance among minority religious groups towards the majority. First, this research encourages a more comprehensive understanding of religious tolerance. In this context, the involvement of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality characteristics can be essential elements in understanding the dynamics of interfaith interactions (Allport & Ross, 1967). Awareness of the role of personal factors can help facilitate more effective interfaith dialogue and build a better understanding among religious groups. However, it is important to recognize the complexity of religious tolerance which involves various personal and situational factors that interact to form an individual's level of tolerance toward other religious groups (Saroglou, 2014; Witenberg, 2019). The research findings have practical implications as well. First, this research can serve as a basis for developing education and training programs aimed at improving religious tolerance among different religious groups. These programs can include a better understanding of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits that support tolerance. Second, it emphasizes the importance of teaching religion which enhances a more intrinsic orientation to religiosity rather than extrinsic. Intrinsic religiosity orientation can be improved through religious teaching that allows for reflection, deep understanding, and the application of religious values in daily life (Cohen et al., 2017; Vazquez & McClure, 2017). Conclusion This study concludes that individual dispositional factors, including intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits, significantly contribute to explaining religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. Specifically, intrinsic religious orientation and three personality traits—extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—positively influence religious tolerance. However, intellect and emotional stability do not demonstrate a significant impact on religious tolerance. o enhance intrinsic religious orientation, it is recommended that religious education provided by parents, educators, and religious leaders prioritize the internalization of religious values on a personal level. This approach aims to foster religious harmony and tolerance within diverse societies. In future research, it would be prudent to investigate additional variables that influence religious tolerance and to analyse research subjects from diverse religious beliefs and backgrounds. Declarations This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Surabaya (Reference Number: 025/KE/IC/2021). All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Ethical Declaration This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Orcid iD Marselius Sampe Tondok https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7255-5350 References Aderibigbe, S. A., Idriz, M., Alzouebi, K., AlOthman, H., Hamdi, W. B., & Companioni, A. A. (2023). Fostering tolerance and respect for diversity through the fundamentals of Islamic education. Religions , 14 (2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020212 Al Fariz, A. B., & Saloom, G. (2021a). Religious tolerance measurement: Validity Test in Indonesia. JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Indonesia) , 10 (1), 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v10i1.16482 Al Fariz, A. B., & Saloom, G. (2021b). The effect of intellectual humility, multicultural personality, and religious orientation toward religious tolerance on students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Psikis: Jurnal Psikologi Islami , 7 (1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.19109/psikis.v7i1.6524 Al Qurtuby, S. (2023). Beyond liberal peace: Religious violence and tactical peacebuilding in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs , 10 (2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/23477970231173525 Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 5 (4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212 Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 2 (2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5 Altınoğlu, E. (2018). Religious commitment or a textualist-traditionalist understanding of Islam? The impact of religious orientations upon social tolerance in Turkey. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies , 45 (5), 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2017.1330135 Anwar, Z. (2016). Resolusi konflik dalam perspektif kepribadian [Conflict resolution in the personality perspective]. Seminar ASEAN: 2nd Psychology and Humanity , 610–615. Ardi, R., Tobing, D. H., Agustina, G. N., Iswahyudi, A. F., & Budiarti, D. (2021). Religious schema and tolerance towards alienated groups in Indonesia. Heliyon , 7 (7), e07603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07603 Bebiroglu, N., van der Noll, J., & Roskam, I. (2017). Growing up in a diverse society: Adolescents’ interest in parental religious socialization messages. Journal of Family Communication , 17 (3), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1286348 Bergner, R. M. (2020). What is personality? Two myths and a definition. New Ideas in Psychology , 57 , 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.100759 Blasi, A., Breskaya, O., & Giordan, G. (2023). Misconceptions of religious freedom: Toward an empirical study of religious rreedom awareness. Religions , 14 (8), 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14081000 BPS Surabaya. (2022). Banyaknya pemeluk agama menurut jenisnya tahun 2017-2019 [The number of religious adherents by type year 2017-2019] . BPS Kota Surabaya. https://surabayakota.bps.go.id/indicator/108/129/1/banyaknya-pemeluk-agama-menurut-jenisnya.html BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2022). Statistical yearbook of Indonesia 2022 . BPS. Brandt, M. J., & Crawford, J. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002 Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 (1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932 Brandt, M. J., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 112 (1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076 Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5 Chandra, J., Tondok, M. S., & Balgies, S. (2022). Indonesian students’ prejudice against homosexuals: Religious fundamentalism and intergroup threat as predictors. Humaniora , 13 (3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v13i3.8346 Chen, C. (2024). Mapping the terrain: A scoping review of empirical studies on the big five personality traits and QoL in China. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1335657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1335657 Choma, B. L., Jagayat, A., Hodson, G., & Turner, R. (2018). Prejudice in the wake of terrorism: The role of temporal distance, ideology, and intergroup emotions. Personality and Individual Differences , 123 , 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.002 Cohen, A. B., Mazza, G. L., Johnson, K. A., Enders, C. K., Warner, C. M., Pasek, M. H., & Cook, J. E. (2017a). Theorizing and measuring religiosity across cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43 (12), 1724–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727732 Cohen, A. B., Mazza, G. L., Johnson, K. A., Enders, C. K., Warner, C. M., Pasek, M. H., & Cook, J. E. (2017b). Theorizing and measuring religiosity across cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43 (12), 1724–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727732 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment , 4 (1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5 Cronshaw, D. (2021). Finding common ground: Grassroots dialogue principles for interreligious learning at university. Journal of Religious Education , 69 (1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-020-00128-0 Cuevas, J. A., & Dawson, B. L. (2021). An integrated review of recent research on the relationships between religious belief, political ideology, authoritarianism, and prejudice. Psychological Reports , 124 (3), 977–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120925392 Dhika, M. (2015). Pengaruh prasangka dan tipe kepribadian big five terhadap toleransi beragama pada anggota front pembela islam (FPI)[ The influence of prejudice and the Big Five personality types on religious tolerance among members of the Islamic Defenders Front] [Skripsi [Undergraduate Thesis]]. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 14 (2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391121 Duck, R. J., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious proscription, right-wing. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 9 (3), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0903_1 Dudin, M. N., Protsenko, I. O., Frolova, Е. Е., Natalia, A. V., & Hokonov, A. A. (2018). Formation of religious tolerance among undergraduates in the multireligious environment of university. European Journal of Science and Theology , 14 (2), 77–87. Ezzy, D., Bouma, G., Barton, G., Halafoff, A., Banham, R., Jackson, R., & Beaman, L. (2020). Religious diversity in Australia: Rethinking social cohesion. Religions , 11 (2), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020092 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment , 4 (1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 28 (3), 348. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386745 Greaves, L. M., Rasheed, A., D’Souza, S., Shackleton, N., Oldfield, L. D., Sibley, C. G., Milne, B., & Bulbulia, J. (2020). Comparative study of attitudes to religious groups in New Zealand reveals Muslim-specific prejudice. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online , 15 (2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1733032 Gurin, P., Nagda, B. (Ratnesh) A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation. Haehner, P., Bleidorn, W., & Hopwood, C. J. (2024). Examining individual differences in personality trait changes after negative life events. European Journal of Personality , 38 (2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231156840 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Cengage. Hassan, R. (2019). Why size matters: Majority/minority status and Muslim piety in South and Southeast Asia. International Sociology , 34 (3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580919835401 Hewstone, M., Clare, A., Newheiser, A. K., & Voci, A. (2011). Individual and situational predictors of religious prejudice: Impact of religion, social dominance orientation, intergroup contact, and mortality salience. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology , 18 (3), 143–155. Hodson, G., Dube, B., & Choma, B. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)?: Can (elaborated) imagined contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 45 (3), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12281 Hughes, C. (2017). Understanding prejudice and education: The challenge for future generations (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315681672 Hunsberger, B., & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues , 61 (4), 807–826. Inderasari, A. P., Sampe Tondok, M., & Yudiarso, A. (2021). Prejudice against veiled Muslim women: The role of right-wing authoritarianism and intergroup anxiety. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi , 6 (1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v6i1.7483 JASP Team. (2024). JASP (Version 0.18.3) [Computer software]. Kamble, S. V., Watson, P. J., Marigoudar, S., & Chen, Z. (2014). Varieties of openness and religious commitment in India: Relationships of attitudes toward hinduism, hindu religious reflection, and religious schema. Archive for the Psychology of Religion , 36 (2), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341283 Kambo, G., & Yani, A. A. (2021). Political Identity and Religious Prejudice in a post-conflict society: A case study of Poso, Indonesia. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University , 56 (3), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.56.3.43 Kanas, A., Scheepers, P., & Sterkens, C. (2017). Positive and negative contact and attitudes towards the religious out-group: Testing the contact hypothesis in conflict and non-conflict regions of Indonesia and the Philippines. Social Science Research , 63 , 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.019 Kenworthy, J. B., Voci, A., Ramiah, A. A., Tausch, N., Hughes, J., & Hewstone, M. (2016). Building trust in a postconflict society: An integrative model of cross-group friendship and intergroup emotions. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 60 (6), 1041–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714564427 Khakim, M. S., Sukanti, A. F., & Sarwedi, A. R. (2020). Kontribusi mahasiswa daerah dalam penaganan intoleransi melalui sinergi perguruan tinggi di DIY. Jurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan , 10 (1), 62–73. Klingenberg, M., & Sjö, S. (2019). Theorizing religious socialization: A critical assessment. Religion , 49 (2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2019.1584349 Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-Item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions , 1 (1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078 Kossowska, M., Szwed, P., Czernatowicz-Kukuczka, A., Sekerdej, M., & Wyczesany, M. (2017). From threat to relief: Expressing prejudice toward atheists as a self-regulatory strategy protecting the religious orthodox from threat. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00873 Kunst, J. R., Sadeghi, T., Tahir, H., Sam, D., & Thomsen, L. (2016). The vicious circle of religious prejudice: Islamophobia makes the acculturation attitudes of majority and minority members clash: Islamophobia makes acculturation clash. European Journal of Social Psychology , 46 (2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2174 Kurniawan, B. (2018). Politisasi agama di tahun politik: Politik pasca-kebenaran di Indonesia dan ancaman bagi demokrasi. Jurnal Sosiologi Agama , 12 (1), 133. https://doi.org/10.14421/jsa.2018.121-07 Leong, C.-H., Lim, C., & Huang, H. Y. (Eds.). (2023). Confident identities, connected communities: Building cohesion through shared experiences . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Lubis, S. I., & Sianipar, A. (2022). How religious tolerance can emerge among religious people: An investigation on the roles of intellectual humility, cognitive flexibility, and trait aggressiveness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 25 (2), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12493 Majid, A. Ab. (2020). Reducing prejudice: The role of contact theory in inter-religious dialogue. International Journal of Advanced Research in Islamic and Humanities , 2 (2), 37–49. Makashvili, A., Vardanashvili, I., & Javakhishvili, N. (2018). Testing intergroup threat theory: Realistic and symbolic threats, religiosity and gender as predictors of prejudice. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 14 (2), 464–484. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1483 Malović, N., & Vujica, K. (2021). Multicultural society as a challenge for coexistence in Europe. Religions , 12 (8), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080615 Mangantibe, V. Y., & Taliwuna, M. C. (2021). Toleransi beragama sebagai pendekatan misi kristen di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Religiosity Entity Humanity (JIREH) , 3 (1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.37364/jireh.v3i1.56 Mann, F. D., Atherton, O. E., DeYoung, C. G., Krueger, R. F., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Big five personality traits and common mental disorders within a hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology: A longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 129 (8), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000633 Mansouri, F., & Vergani, M. (2018). Intercultural contact, knowledge of Islam, and prejudice against muslims in Australia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 66 , 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.07.001 Matviyets, A. S., Veltri, G., & Rüpke, J. (2023). Tolerance and Intolerance in Religion and Beyond: Challenges from the Past and in the Present (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003082484 McCowan, T. (2017). Building bridges rather than walls: Research into an experiential model of interfaith education in secondary schools. British Journal of Religious Education , 39 (3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2015.1128387 Meiza, A. (2018). Sikap toleransi dan tipe kepribadian big five pada mahasiswa UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. Psympathic : Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi , 5 (1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.15575/psy.v5i1.1959 Meliana, Y., & Tondok, M. S. (2023). Prejudice toward Papuan Students: The role of intergroup anxiety, belief, contact quality, and social identity. Sosiohumaniora , 25 (2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v25i2.38300 Meuleman, B., Abts, K., Slootmaeckers, K., & Meeusen, C. (2019). Differentiated threat and the genesis of prejudice: Group-specific antecedents of homonegativity, islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant attitudes. Social Problems , 66 (2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy002 Muhid, A. (2020). Religious tolerance among college students: How it’s influenced by religious orientation and personality traits? HUMANITAS: Indonesian Psychological Journal , 17 (1), 55. https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v17i1.12222 Musbikin, I. (2021). Pendidikan karakter toleransi . Nusamedia. Mustafa, M. T., & Khan, M. H. U. (2023). Promoting religious freedom in diverse societies. Journal of Policy Research , 9 (2), 817–821. https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00023 Mu’ti, A. (2023). Pluralistic Islamic religious education: A vision for Indonesia. The Review of Faith & International Affairs , 21 (2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2023.2200280 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology , 38 (6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Prakoso, G. B., & Najicha, F. U. (2022). Pentingnya membangun rasa toleransi dan wawasan nusantara dalam bermasyarakat. Jurnal Global Citizen: Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan , 11 (1), 67–71. Putra, I. E., & Wagner, W. (2017). Prejudice in interreligious context: The role of metaprejudice and majority-minority status. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology , 27 (3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2305 Putra, I. E., Wagner, W., Holtz, P., & Rufaedah, A. (2021). Accounting for a riot: Religious identity, denying one’s prejudice, and the tool of blasphemy. Journal of Social and Political Psychology , 9 (1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5565 Raihani. (2014). Creating a Culture of Religious Tolerance in an Indonesian School. South East Asia Research , 22 (4), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.5367/sear.2014.0234 Razpurker‐Apfeld, I., & Shamoa‐Nir, L. (2020). Imagined contact with strongly identified outgroup members: Do religious trappings make the man? Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 23 (4), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12412 Reimer, N. K., Kamble, S. V., Schmid, K., & Hewstone, M. (2020). Intergroup contact fosters more inclusive social identities. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 136843022096079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220960795 Roberts, B. W., & Yoon, H. J. (2022). Personality Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology , 73 (1), 489–516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114927 Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Giess, M. E., Morin, S. M., Staples, B. A., Correia-Harker, B. P., & Associates. (2020). IDEALS: Bridging religious divides through higher education . Interfaith Youth Core. Sabdin, M., & Ikhwan Izzat Zulkefli, M. (2023). The relationship between religious knowledge, religious personality and inter-ethnic tolerance among Malaysian undergraduate students. KnE Social Sciences . https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i20.14613 Saroglou, V. (Ed.). (2014). Religion, Personality, and Social Behavior . Psychology Press. Saroglou, V., Clobert, M., Cohen, A. B., Johnson, K. A., Ladd, K. L., Brandt, P.-Y., Murken, S., Muñoz-García, A., Adamovova, L., Blogowska, J., Çukur, C. S., Hwang, K.-K., Miglietta, A., Motti-Stefanidi, F., Roussiau, N., & Valladares, J. T. (2020). Fundamentalism as dogmatic belief, moral rigorism, and strong groupness across cultures: Dimensionality, underlying components, and related interreligious prejudice. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality . https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000339 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043 Sinclair, V. M., Topa, G., & Saklofske, D. (2020). Personality correlates of compassion: A cross-cultural analysis. Mindfulness , 11 (10), 2423–2432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01459-7 Sözer, Ö. T., & Eskin, M. (2023). Religiosity, Identity Confusion, and Psychological Well-Being in Turkish University Students: The Moderating Role of Religious Orientation. Journal of Religion and Health , 62 (2), 984–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01625-2 Streib, H., & Klein, C. (2014). Religious styles predict interreligious prejudice: A study of German adolescents with the religious schema scale. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 24 (2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2013.808869 Sulistio, S., Suryanto, S., Hadziq, A., & Bulut, S. (2020). The mediating effect of group identity and religious fundamentalism on the association of intergroup contact with prejudice. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi , 5 (2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v5i2.6486 Sumaktoyo, N. G. (2017). Penelitian empiris mengenai toleransi di Indonesia: Menuju praktik terbaik [The empirical study on tolerance in Indonesia: Towards best practices]. In I. Ali-Fauzi, Z. A. Bagir, & I. Rafsadi (Eds.), Kebebasan, toleransi dan terorisme: Riset dan kebijakan agama di Indonesia [Freedom, tolerance, and terrorism: Research and religious policy in Indonesia] (pp. 159–192). Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi Yayasan Parmamadina. Suminta, R. R. (2017). Hubungan antara tipe kepribadian dengan orientasi religiusitas [The relationship between personality type and religious orientation]. FIKRAH , 4 (2), 214. https://doi.org/10.21043/fikrah.v4i2.1884 Tahir, H., Rønningsdalen Kunst, J., & Lackland Sam, D. (2019). Threat, anti-western hostility and violence among european muslims: The mediating role of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 73 , 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.08.001 Tondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., & Ardi, R. (2022). Intervention program to reduce religious prejudice in education settings: A scoping review. Religions , 13 (4), 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040299 Tondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., & Ardi, R. (2024). Validation of the general evaluation scale for measuring ethnic and religious prejudice in an Indonesian sample. Social Sciences , 13 (1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021 Van Tongeren, D. R., Hakim, S., Hook, J. N., Johnson, K. A., Green, J. D., Hulsey, T. L., & Davis, D. E. (2016). Toward an understanding of religious tolerance: Quest religiousness and positive attitudes toward teligiously dissimilar others. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 26 (3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2015.1039417 Vazquez, B., & McClure, K. (2017). Extrinsic/Intrinsic Religious Orientation: A Moderator Between Religiosity and Prejudice in Christian and Muslim College Students . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2600f7b6454aad6049c278581919daed8b0a83b3 Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. (2019). Intergroup toleration and its implications for culturally diverse societies: Intergroup toleration. Social Issues and Policy Review , 13 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12051 Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. (2023). The social psychology of intergroup tolerance and intolerance. European Review of Social Psychology , 34 (1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2091326 Wijaya Mulya, T., & Schäfer, S. (2023). Who belongs where? Geographies of (inter)religion and urban segregation in Surabaya, Indonesia. Cities , 141 , 104476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104476 Witenberg, R. T. (2019). The psychology of tolerance: Conception and development . Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3789-5 Yafie, M. F., Solicha, & Syahid, A. (2020). Muslim prejudice: Study of the effects of religiosity, fundamentalism, religious quest, and social domination orientation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Islam, Science and Technology (ICONIST 2019) . https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200220.017 Yendell, A., & Huber, S. (2020). The relevance of the centrality and content of religiosity for explaining islamophobia in Switzerland. Religions , 11 (3), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11030129 Zainiddinov, H. (2024). The explanatory role of religious identity, practices and beliefs in perceived discrimination among Muslim American racial/ethnic groups. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-09-2023-0238 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6783239","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":464082922,"identity":"e7bf2d62-b004-4d3b-9bda-ffd933be3b5d","order_by":0,"name":"Marselius Sampe Tondok","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7255-5350","institution":"Faculty of Psychology, University of Surabaya, Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marselius","middleName":"Sampe","lastName":"Tondok","suffix":""},{"id":464082923,"identity":"68dc972a-c498-413c-bfdf-0ffd78b79ec5","order_by":1,"name":"Dinda Aulia Safitri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faculty of Psychology, University of Surabaya, Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dinda","middleName":"Aulia","lastName":"Safitri","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-30 09:24:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83883895,"identity":"01df93c5-09a5-4195-b87f-65dd57b24fa1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 06:22:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6783239/v1/e6f9736844c7b7cb6730c18a.png"},{"id":83884482,"identity":"e9344f82-a06f-4275-9393-2f716c490758","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 06:30:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":746974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6783239/v1/b434a80e-0cb8-46ca-9dd9-85c7b268d969.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnveiling Religious Tolerance among Indonesian Christian Youth: How Do Personality Traits and Intrinsic Religiosity Orientation Matter?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOngoing discrimination and intolerance toward religion and belief systems represent a significant global challenge to religious diversity. In today\u0026apos;s interconnected world, discussions surrounding \u0026quot;freedom of expression\u0026quot; often target specific religions or beliefs, leading to heightened intolerance and negatively impacting global peace. These contentious dialogues underscore the importance of fostering tolerance in intergroup relations, particularly those rooted in social identity, such as religion. Scholars (e.g. Blasi et al., 2023; Matviyets et al., 2023; Verkuyten et al., 2023) highlight the crucial role of tolerance in promoting mutual understanding and appreciating differences among various social identities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTolerance in intergroup relations serves as a vital mechanism for mitigating various forms of discrimination, especially against minority groups striving to assert their rights as equal human beings. Researchers (e.g. Musbikin, 2021; Prakoso \u0026amp; Najicha, 2022; Verkuyten et al., 2019), demonstrates that intergroup tolerance also acts as a protective shield against acts of violence. In this context, religious tolerance emerges as an indispensable component of modern social life. Scholars (e.g. Tondok et al., 2022; Van Tongeren et al., 2016) emphasize the growing importance of fostering religious tolerance to navigate the complexities of contemporary societal dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs societies grow more diverse and interconnected, fostering religious tolerance becomes essential for preserving social harmony and peaceful coexistence (Gurin et al., 2013; Leong et al., 2023). By advocating for tolerance in intergroup interactions, individuals and communities can cultivate inclusive environments that honour and celebrate differences (Aderibigbe et al., 2023; Malović \u0026amp; Vujica, 2021). Furthermore, nurturing religious tolerance not only protects the rights and dignity of every individual but also helps construct resilient and cohesive societies equipped to confront the diverse challenges of the contemporary world (Ezzy et al., 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReligious Tolerance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReligious tolerance can be defined as the willingness to respect and accept different religious beliefs and practices, allowing individuals or groups to express their faith freely without fear of discrimination, persecution, or hostility, while promoting peaceful coexistence and understanding among diverse religious communities (Mustafa \u0026amp; Khan, 2023). In line Witenberg (2019), tolerance is defined as \u0026quot;resilience,\u0026quot; involves acknowledging that others may hold different opinions and practices but does not necessitate any form of endorsement by embracing these differences (Witenberg, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReligious tolerance entails a willingness to respect and embrace diverse religious beliefs and practices, allowing individuals or communities to express their faith openly without encountering discrimination, persecution, or hostility, thus promoting peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding among various religious groups (Mustafa \u0026amp; Khan, 2023). In line with this concept, Witenberg (2019) defines tolerance as embodying resilience, acknowledging that others may hold different views and practices without necessitating one\u0026apos;s endorsement or adoption of those differences (Witenberg, 2019). According to Witenberg (2019), religious tolerance encompasses three key elements: fairness, empathy, and reasonableness. Fairness entails treating others equitably and acknowledging the diversity of perspectives as integral to life. Empathy refers to an individual\u0026apos;s capacity to understand and resonate with the feelings, viewpoints, and struggles of others. Reasonableness involves making judgments based on logical and rational considerations when interacting with those who hold different beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReligious tolerance is a matter deeply intertwined with students. Students represent the future generation of the nation and hold the promise of a nation\u0026rsquo;s future, as they will assume leadership roles and serve as agents of social transformation (Khakim et al., 2020). Therefore, equipping students with comprehensive education through knowledge and firsthand experiences is imperative in addressing intolerant attitudes and embracing the nation\u0026apos;s diversity, fostering coexistence and tolerance among religious communities. Hence, formal education, including higher education, thus assumes a pivotal role in instilling values of mutual respect, empathy, and solidarity with fellow humans, transcending diverse social identities (Hughes, 2017; Raihani, 2014; Rockenbach et al., 2020; Tondok et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReligious Orientation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe body of knowledge has demonstrated that religious orientation is a significant antecedent to religious tolerance (Altınoğlu, 2018; Matviyets et al., 2023; Muhid, 2020; Van Tongeren et al., 2016) Religious orientation denotes the motivations driving individuals when they participate in religious activities, and it can be classified into two main categories: extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientation (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967). Intrinsic religious orientation, as opposed to extrinsic orientation, plays a crucial role in shaping individuals\u0026apos; tolerance and their alignment with their religious beliefs or acceptance of their religion\u0026apos;s teachings (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967; Koenig \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;ssing, 2010). An individual\u0026apos;s religious background and their propensity for tolerance are shaped by their intrinsic religious orientation, which is grounded in their interpretation of their faith\u0026apos;s values (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967; Hunsberger \u0026amp; Jackson, 2005; Lubis \u0026amp; Sianipar, 2022; S\u0026ouml;zer \u0026amp; Eskin, 2023). Intrinsic religious orientation represents a deep internalization of religious beliefs beyond mere attendance at religious gatherings. Those with intrinsic religiosity embrace their faith\u0026apos;s practices and teachings because of their personal conviction, rather than external pressures or desires for social status or validation. They find meaning and fulfillment in their religious beliefs and practices, deriving comfort, guidance, and a sense of purpose from them (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967; Cohen et al., 2017; Gorsuch \u0026amp; McPherson, 1989; Hunsberger \u0026amp; Jackson, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, individuals with extrinsic religious orientation may perceive religion as a means to accomplish their objectives, such as obtaining social recognition or fitting in (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967; Hunsberger \u0026amp; Jackson, 2005). This might explain how having intrinsic religious orientation might lead to better outcomes compared to extrinsic orientation. Earlier research suggests that individuals characterized by intrinsic religious orientation exhibit higher levels of tolerance and lower levels of prejudice and discrimination toward an outgroup compared to those with an extrinsic religious orientation (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967; Duck \u0026amp; Hunsberger, 1999; Muhid, 2020; Zainiddinov, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePersonality Trait\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier research has indicated that individuals exhibiting either tolerance or intolerance commonly display distinct traits within their personalities (Dudin et al., 2018; Sabdin \u0026amp; Ikhwan Izzat Zulkefli, 2023). Tolerance, as a trait, can manifest in diverse situations, even when clarity or personal advantage is lacking. An individual\u0026apos;s personality significantly shapes their religious beliefs, influencing their ability to demonstrate tolerance towards other religions, regardless of the perceived benefits (Matviyets et al., 2023; Verkuyten et al., 2023; Witenberg, 2019). Personality refers to \u0026ldquo;the enduring set of traits and styles that a person exhibits, which characteristics represent dispositions of this person, and ways in which this person differs from the standard normal person in his or her society\u0026rdquo; (Bergner, 2020). These patterns serve as the psychological framework that maintains consistency across different situations and persists over time (Sinclair et al., 2020). Within this expansive framework, personality traits represent enduring attributes that indicate an individual\u0026apos;s consistent inclinations and preferences in behavior (Haehner et al., 2024). Personality assessment can be approached through various methods, with one prominent perspective being the personality trait approach.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe big five personality trait model stands as one of the foremost recognized frameworks for understanding personality (Chen, 2024; Mann et al., 2020; Roberts \u0026amp; Yoon, 2022). This psychological framework evaluates an individual\u0026apos;s personality based on the Big Five Personality Traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability (Costa \u0026amp; McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992). The Big Five Personality Traits encompass five overarching dimensions of personality. Extraversion characterizes individuals who exhibit outgoing, sociable, and energetic tendencies, often seeking social interactions and feeling comfortable in group settings. Agreeableness signifies traits of compassion, cooperation, and consideration towards others, with those scoring high demonstrating empathy, trust, and a willingness to aid others for fostering harmonious relationships. Conscientiousness denotes traits of organization, responsibility, and self-discipline, with diligent individuals being dependable planners striving for success. Intellect, also known as Openness to Experience, reflects a predisposition towards embracing new ideas, experiences, and intellectual pursuits, where intellectually curious individuals express an appreciation for art, culture, and abstract thinking. Emotional Stability, or Neuroticism, measures susceptibility to negative emotions such as anxiety or depression; individuals scoring high demonstrate emotional resilience and composure, while those scoring low may encounter mood fluctuations and emotional distress (Costa \u0026amp; McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterreligious Relations Context in Indonesia\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in Indonesia, a country known for its religiously diverse population and distinguished by its national ideology of \u0026apos;Pancasila\u0026apos; and motto of \u0026apos;Unity in Diversity\u0026rsquo; (Ardi et al., 2021). Situated in Southeast Asia, Indonesia ranks as the world\u0026apos;s fourth most populous nation, boasting over 270 million inhabitants. Moreover, the country comprises 17,000 islands and is inhabited by 1,340 distinct ethnic groups speaking 733 different languages (Mu\u0026rsquo;ti, 2023). Indonesia officially recognizes six religions, including Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, alongside various other belief systems and ancestral religions (Wijaya Mulya \u0026amp; Sch\u0026auml;fer, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReligion plays a pivotal role in Indonesian society, influencing social interactions and daily routines (Al Qurtuby, 2023). It stands as a fundamental pillar of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s state ideology, with mandatory courses on individual religions in both public schools and universities (Mulya and Aditomo, 2019). The population of Indonesia, totaling 270 million, comprises approximately 86.93 percent Muslims, 7.47 percent Protestants, 3.08 percent Catholics, 1.71 percent Hindus, 0.74 percent Buddhists, 0.03 percent Confucians, and 0.05 percent adherents of other belief systems and ancestral religions (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of interreligious relations in Indonesia, religious tolerance is evident in the long history of coexistence and mutual respect among diverse religious communities, which is rooted in the national ideology of \u0026apos;Pancasila\u0026apos; and the motto of \u0026apos;Unity in Diversity. However, instances of religious intolerance, fueled by political and social factors, persist, posing challenges to the harmonious interreligious relations in the country. Historical conflicts between the two major religions, Islam and Christianity, have often stemmed from issues related to religious conversion. The dissemination of religions, characterized by Islamization and Christianization, remains a sensitive topic among Muslims and Christians in Indonesia (Kanas et al., 2017; Putra \u0026amp; Wagner, 2017; Tondok et al., 2024). Therefore, this study focuses on explaining the religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers, considering that Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePresent Study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the Indonesian context, several previous studies have delved into the connection between intrinsic religious orientation, personality traits, and religious tolerance. For instance, Al Fariz and Saloom (2021)\u0026nbsp;discovered a negative association between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance among Muslim participants from UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Meanwhile, Muhid (2020)conducted a study involving intrinsic religious orientation and the Big Five personality traits as independent variables, encompassing students from six universities in Surabaya, representing diverse religious backgrounds including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Their findings unveiled a significant positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Additionally, personality traits such as agreeableness and openness exhibited a positive correlation with religious tolerance, whereas extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism did not demonstrate a significant association with religious tolerance. Another study by Dhika (2015) involving members of the \u0026apos;Front Pembela Islam\u0026apos; (FPI or Islamic Defenders Front), a fundamental religious movement in Indonesia, revealed that religious tolerance had a positive correlation with extraversion and agreeableness, but a negative correlation with neuroticism. It did not show significant correlations with openness and conscientiousness. Other research by Meiza (2018)\u0026nbsp;with participants from Islamic Public University Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung found no significant differences in tolerance attitudes based on personality traits.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral previous studies within the Indonesian context have explored the relationship between intrinsic religious orientation, personality traits, and religious tolerance. For example, Al Fariz and Saloom (2021) discovered a negative association between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance among Muslim participants from UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Meanwhile, Muhid (2020) conducted a study involving intrinsic religious orientation and the Big Five personality traits as independent variables, encompassing students from six universities in Surabaya, representing diverse religious backgrounds including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Their findings unveiled a significant positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Additionally, personality traits such as agreeableness and openness exhibited a positive correlation with religious tolerance, whereas extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism did not demonstrate a significant association with religious tolerance. Another study by Dhika (2015) involving members of the \u0026apos;Front Pembela Islam\u0026apos; (FPI), a fundamental religious movement in Indonesia, revealed that religious tolerance had a positive correlation with extraversion and agreeableness but a negative correlation with neuroticism. It did not show significant correlations with openness and conscientiousness. On the contrary, Meiza\u0026apos;s (2018) study, involving Islamic university students from UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, revealed no notable variations in tolerance attitudes linked to personality traits.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of several previous studies delving into the impact of intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits on religious tolerance within the Indonesian context, two inconsistent patterns have emerged. Firstly, a discrepancy exists in the correlation direction between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance in studies conducted by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021) compared to Muhid (2020). Secondly, differing findings regarding both the direction and significance of the correlation between personality traits and religious tolerance are evident in studies by Dhika (2015) and Muhid (2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inconsistencies in the previous research findings, among the studies of Al Fariz and Saloom (2021), Dhika (2015)), and Muhid (2020),\u0026nbsp;may stem from variations in social contexts and the participants\u0026apos; status as either belonging to the majority or minority group. Al Fariz and Saloom\u0026apos;s (2021)\u0026nbsp;and Dhika\u0026apos;s (2015) studies\u0026nbsp;focused solely on Muslim participants who constituted the majority within their social setting. Their findings revealed a negative correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. Conversely, Muhid\u0026apos;s (2020)\u0026nbsp;study\u0026nbsp;included participants from diverse religious backgrounds across six campuses, encompassing both majority and minority-status individuals. Here, the results indicated a positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. These distinctions in social settings and participant demographics are likely influential factors contributing to the divergent research outcomes, underscoring the significance of contextual considerations in exploring religious tolerance and its associated factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on prior research and acknowledging the significance of majority and minority statuses, we undertook a study encompassing diverse social contexts, with a specific focus on Christian students in three distinct settings. The first setting was a faith-based university (inclusive of Catholic and Protestant denominations), where Christians held the majority. The second setting involved a public university where Christian students constituted the minority. Lastly, the investigation extended to a multicultural campus characterized by a relatively balanced representation of both Christian and Muslim students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore the relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) and religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. Drawing from previous studies, we hypothesize the following, as shown in Figure 1:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) collectively with religious tolerance (major hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation and religious tolerance (first minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between extraversion personality trait and religious tolerance (second minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between agreeableness personality trait and religious tolerance (third minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between conscientiousness personality trait and religious tolerance (fourth minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between intellect personality trait and religious tolerance (fifth minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a relationship between emotional stability personality trait and religious tolerance (sixth minor hypothesis/H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quantitative survey research methodology with a cross-sectional design. The purpose was to examine the association between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) in elucidating religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students. Data collection utilized online questionnaires distributed via G-Form. Prior to participation, participants were provided with detailed explanations regarding the research objectives, their rights as participants, and data privacy. Informed consent was obtained to ensure their willingness to participate before completing the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants in this study (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 402) were Christian university students (both Catholic,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eN\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 201; and Protestant,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eN\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 201) enrolled in universities located in Surabaya. The characteristics of the study participants were as follows: there were 219 male participants (54.5%) and 183 female participants (45.5%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 20.40;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.36). All the participants were drawn from three distinct subpopulations, each representing different social contexts. The first subpopulation included students from private Christian-based universities (both Catholic and Protestant), where Christian students outnumbered Muslim students. The second subpopulation consisted of students from public universities where Christian students were in the minority compared to Muslim students. Lastly, the third subpopulation comprised students from a multicultural private university where the number of Christian students was roughly equivalent to that of Muslim students and students from other faiths.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants in this study were chosen from the population through a blend of quota sampling methods and accidental sampling. Quota sampling was employed to ensure an equal representation of Catholic and Protestant participants. The total sample size was 402, with a confidence level of 95%, resulting in a margin of error of 4.84%. We provided informed consent to ensure that participants willingly agreed to participate in this study. Informed consent included a thorough explanation of the research goals, participants\u0026apos; rights, and data privacy before participants were invited to fill out the questionnaire.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReligious tolerance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eParticipants completed the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eReligious tolerance scale (RTS).\u003c/em\u003e This measure initially developed by Witenberg (2019) and adapted in Indonesian context by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021a). The RTS consists of three aspects: fairness, empathy, and reasonableness, each containing 5 items, totaling 15 items. Participants rated each item on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from \u0026lsquo;strongly disagree (1)\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;strongly agree (4)\u0026rsquo;. The researcher tailored the measurement instrument to fit the context of this study, which focuses on religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students. For instance, an item in the fairness aspect is: \u0026quot;I am willing to accept various ideas from Muslim students.\u0026quot; An item in the empathy aspect could be: \u0026quot;I can feel the sadness experienced by Muslim students when they face adversity.\u0026quot; In the reasonableness aspect, items include: \u0026quot;I choose to have direct discussions with Muslim students if there are differing opinions or views regarding Islam.\u0026quot; The religious tolerance measurement instrument utilized in this study demonstrates a reliability of Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .82.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe religious orientation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Participants filled out the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eReligious Orientation Scale (ROS\u003c/em\u003e) developed by Gorsuch and McPherson (1989). This scale is based on the two dimensions of religious orientation: intrinsic religious orientation and extrinsic religious orientation, as delineated by Allport and Ross (1967). Consistent with the research objectives, our study focused exclusively on the intrinsic religious orientation subscale, which consists of 8 items. Participants provided ratings for each item using a four-point Likert scale, with options ranging from \u0026apos;strongly disagree (1)\u0026apos; to \u0026apos;strongly agree (4)\u0026apos;. For example, one item stated: \u0026ldquo;I have often had a strong sense of God\u0026rsquo;s presence.\u0026rdquo; The intrinsic religious orientation subscale used in this study showed a reliability coefficient of Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .77.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersonality traits.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eParticipants responded to\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eInternational Personality Item Pool-Big Five Factor Markers (IPIP-BFM).\u003c/em\u003e We utilized the short version of the IPIP-BFM-25 in the Indonesian language, as developed by Akhtar \u0026amp; Azwar (2018). This measurement instrument, originally created by Goldberg (1992), evaluates the Big Five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability. Participants rated each item on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from \u0026lsquo;very inappropriate (1)\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;very appropriate (4)\u0026rsquo;. Each personality trait comprises 5 items, resulting in a total of 25 items. For instance, an item assessing extraversion trait is: \u0026quot;I usually start conversations with new people.\u0026quot; An example item for agreeableness could be: \u0026quot;I care about others.\u0026quot; Items representing conscientiousness include: \u0026quot;I perform activities according to a schedule or agenda.\u0026quot; The intellect trait features items like: \u0026quot;I have a very vivid imagination.\u0026quot; Emotional stability items include: \u0026quot;My mood often changes quickly.\u0026quot; The IPIP-BFM-25 Indonesia measurement instrument has demonstrated reliability, with coefficients of reliability for each trait as follows: (1) extraversion with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .79, (2) agreeableness with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .78, (3) conscientiousness with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .80, (4) intellect with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .73, and (5) emotional stability with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .77.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe methodology selected for hypothesis testing involves utilizing multiple correlation and partial correlation analysis with the JASP (Jeffrey\u0026apos;s Amazing Statistic Program) version 0.18.3 (JASP Team, 2024). This approach was chosen to evaluate the impact of the six independent variables in the study, both collectively by including all independent variables in the model, and partially by controlling for other independent variables in the model, on the dependent variable. This analytical technique was preferred due to its adherence to various assumptions, including the interval nature of the data, normally distributed residuals, linear relationships between the independent and dependent variables, absence of multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and no autocorrelation. The statistical hypothesis or null hypothesis is rejected if p \u0026lt; .05 (Hair et al., 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to investigate how intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability) contribute to religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim peers. Prior to presenting the results of inferential testing, an overview of the research variables was provided. Table 1 summarizes the mean (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e), standard deviation (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e) and Pearson\u0026rsquo;s intercorrelation among variables. \u0026nbsp; \u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation of Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. RT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. IRO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. E\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. A\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. C\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.48***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. ES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.16***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.25***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.26***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.38***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u003c/strong\u003e RT (religious tolerance); IRO (intrinsic religiosity orientation); E (extraversion); A (agreeableness);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eC (conscientiousness); I (intellect); ES (emotional stability);\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .05,\u0026nbsp;**\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .01,\u0026nbsp;***\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .001. The raw scores for all variables range from 1 to 4, resulting in a median of 2.5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 reveals that all variables, except Extraversion and Emotional Stability, have means above the median. The table also displays the correlations between the research variables, illustrating the relationships among the seven variables under investigation. Positive significant correlations were identified among religious tolerance, intrinsic religious orientation, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Conversely, negative significant correlations were observed between emotional stability and the other variables, except for extraversion. Additionally, the personality trait of intellect exhibited no significant correlations with the other variables, except for extraversion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e. Results of Hypothesis Analysis: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e-test and \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis \u0026ndash; Independent Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious Tolerance (Dependent Variable)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdjusted R\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e - IRO, E, A, C, I, ES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.14***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - Intrinsic religiosity orientation (IRO)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.94***\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e - Extraversion (E)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.62**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e - Agreeableness (A)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.37\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.95***\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e - Conscientiousness (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.14\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.16**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e - Intellect (I)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.85\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e - Emotional stability (ES)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u003c/strong\u003e *\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .05,\u0026nbsp;**\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .01,\u0026nbsp;***\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of hypothesis testing using multiple correlation (F-test) and partial correlation (t-test) analysis are presented in Table 2. The table illustrates the relationship among the six independent variables collectively with the dependent variable to examine the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), and partially (t-test) to assess the minor hypotheses, which represent the correlation between each independent variable and the dependent variable (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e). The results indicate that the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) and minor hypotheses 1 (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), 2 (H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), 3 (H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e), and 4 (H\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e) are accepted (p \u0026lt; .05). However, minor hypotheses 5 (H\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and 6 (H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e) are rejected (p \u0026gt; .05).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of hypothesis testing using multiple correlation (F-test) and partial correlation (t-test) analysis are presented in Table 2. The table illustrates the relationship among the six independent variables collectively with the dependent variable to examine the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), and partially (t-test) to assess the minor hypotheses, which represent the correlation between each independent variable and the dependent variable (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e). The results indicate that the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) and minor hypotheses 1 (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), 2 (H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), 3 (H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e), and 4 (H\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e) are accepted (p \u0026lt; .05). However, minor hypotheses 5 (H\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and 6 (H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e) are rejected (p \u0026gt; .05).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study is to explore the relationship \u0026nbsp;between intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits,\u0026nbsp;including\u0026nbsp;extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability, and their impact on religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. The findings are discussed as follows.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the finding from the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) test using the \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e-test in Table 2 reveals that intrinsic religious orientation and the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability collectively correlate with the religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6,401) = 68.14, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e = .71, \u003cem\u003eAdj.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001.\u0026nbsp;This result confirms the acceptance of the major hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) in this study.\u0026nbsp;This research finding aligns with those of Muhid (2020), which demonstrated that intrinsic religious orientation and the big five personality traits are associated with religious tolerance among university students from various religious backgrounds, including Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, at the sampled universities in Surabaya.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, according to Table 2, with an adjusted \u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e value of .501, it can be deduced that in this study, intrinsic religious orientation, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability collectively explain 50.1% of the religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students. This indicates that the six independent variables have a large effect size (Cohen, 1988) on religious tolerance. The remaining 49.9%, however, accounts for the influence of other variables beyond these six independent variables. From a theoretical perspective, Sumaktoyo (2017) categorizes the factors influencing religious tolerance into three categories: cultural-theological, institutional, and psychological. Intrinsic religious orientation and the personality traits examined in this study can be classified under the personal-psychological factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on theoretical concepts and prior research findings, subsequent researchers can consider incorporating additional variables from the cultural-theological, institutional, and personal-psychological domains, in addition to intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits. Some of these factors include: religious fundamentalism (e.g. Altemeyer \u0026amp; Hunsberger, 1992; Brandt \u0026amp; Van Tongeren, 2017; Saroglou et al., 2020; Sulistio et al., 2020; Yafie et al., 2020); \u0026nbsp; knowledge (e.g. Mansouri \u0026amp; Vergani, 2018); political-social attitude, especially right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer \u0026amp; Hunsberger, 1992; Inderasari et al., 2021; Saroglou et al., 2020; Yendell \u0026amp; Huber, 2020) and social dominance orientation (Hewstone et al., 2011; Sidanius \u0026amp; Pratto, 1999; Yafie et al., 2020); religious socialization (e.g., Bebiroglu et al., 2017; Klingenberg \u0026amp; Sj\u0026ouml;, 2019); conservatism religious belief (e.g. Brandt et al., 2014; Brandt \u0026amp; Crawford, 2020; Hunsberger and Jackson, 2005); religious belief/religious schema (e.g. Ardi et al., 2021; Kamble et al., 2014; Streib \u0026amp; Klein, 2014); political orientation (e.g., Cuevas and Dawson, 2021; Kambo \u0026amp; Yani, 2021; Yendell \u0026amp; Huber, 2020); out-group empathy (Brown \u0026amp; Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2008); out-group trust (e.g., Choma et al., 2018; Hodson et al., 2015; Kenworthy et al., 2016; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2008); religious identity (e.g. Kambo \u0026amp; Yani, 2021; Kunst et al., 2016; Putra et al., 2021; Sulistio et al., 2020); perceptions of intergroup conflict, especially based on religious identity and resulting in emotional reactions such as intergroup/religious threat (e.g. Greaves et al., 2020; Kossowska et al., 2017; Makashvili et al., 2018; Meuleman et al., 2019; Tahir et al., 2019); intergroup anxiety (Chandra et al., 2022; Inderasari et al., 2021; Meliana \u0026amp; Tondok, 2023; Razpurker‐Apfeld \u0026amp; Shamoa‐Nir, 2020); majority-minority status (e.g. Hassan, 2019; Putra \u0026amp; Wagner, 2017); intergroup contact (Cronshaw, 2021; Kanas et al., 2017; Majid, 2020; Mansouri \u0026amp; Vergani, 2018; McCowan, 2017; Reimer et al., 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, Table 2 shows that there was a highly significant positive correlation between intrinsic religiosity and the religious tolerance of Christian students towards Muslim students [\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = .29; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = 6.94; \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001]. Therefore, the first minor hypothesis (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) of this research is accepted. This positive correlation indicates that the higher the intrinsic religious orientation held by Christian students, the higher their religious tolerance towards Muslim students. Conversely, the lower the intrinsic religious orientation of Christian students, the lower their religious tolerance towards Muslim students. These research findings align with Muhid\u0026apos;s (2020) study which demonstrated a significant positive relationship between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance [\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = .29, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = 5.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001]. Intrinsically oriented individuals engage in religious practices and follow the beliefs they hold with full understanding within themselves, rather than due to external pressures, social status, or a desire for external recognition\u0026nbsp;(Hunsberger \u0026amp; Jackson, 2005; S\u0026ouml;zer \u0026amp; Eskin, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance is supported by the data presented in Table 1. The table indicates that participants\u0026apos; scores on both variables primarily lie above the median. These research findings are not in line with a previous study by Al Fariz and Saloom (2021), which found a negative correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and religious tolerance. This negative correlation could be attributed to the fact that the participants in this study belong to a highly religious group, have limited contact with other groups, and thus may be less open and tolerant towards other religious groups (Sumaktoyo, 2017). The presence of a positive correlation between these two variables can be explained as follows. Intrinsic religious orientation refers to a way of practicing religion that is oriented towards a dedicated and thorough commitment to religion, making this commitment a driving force in one\u0026apos;s religious life. In individuals with intrinsic orientation, religious teachings are deeply internalized and followed comprehensively. Moreover, those with intrinsic orientation engage in religious practices and follow religious commandments with a full understanding and commitment that arises from within, rather than being driven by external pressures, social status, or a desire for external recognition (Hunsberger \u0026amp; Jackson, 2005). Therefore, the empirical results of this study provide evidence that individuals with intrinsic religious orientation are more open to differences and, as a result, more tolerant towards other religious groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThirdly, the findings in Table 2 indicate a relationship between the trait of extraversion and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = .11, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = 2.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01]. Thus, minor hypothesis 2 (H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e) is accepted. This result suggests that the stronger the trait of extraversion in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. The data in Table 1 supports this positive correlation, as the participants\u0026apos; scores on both variables are in the high and very high categories. Theoretically, it can be explained that individuals with the trait of extraversion exhibit characteristics such as being initiative, enthusiastic, sociable, communicative, and expressive (Goldberg, 1992), making them more open to heterogeneous social situations. Therefore, this research aligns with prior empirical studies conducted by\u0026nbsp;Dhika (2015)\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Muhid (2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourthly, Table 2 shows a relationship between the trait of agreeableness and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .37, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) \u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 7.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001]. This result confirms the acceptance of minor hypothesis 3 (H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e). The research findings indicated that the stronger the trait of agreeableness in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. The positive correlation between these two variables is also supported by the data in Table 1, which shows that the participants\u0026apos; scores on both variables were in the very high category. The findings of this study align with theoretical concepts stating that individuals with high levels of agreeableness tend to be friendly, gentle-hearted, generous, cooperative, trusting, accommodating, accepting, warm, and tolerant (Goldberg, 1992). These findings are also consistent with empirical research conducted in the context of Indonesia (Dhika, 2015)\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, this research aligns with \u0026nbsp;Suminta\u0026apos;s (2017)\u0026nbsp;study, which found that individuals who exhibit altruistic, patient, and humble behaviors tend to have goodwill and behave honestly toward others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFifthly, Table 2 indicates a relationship between the trait of conscientiousness and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = .14, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = 3.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01. Thus, the empirical results support the minor hypothesis 4 (H\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e) of this research. The positive relationship between these two variables suggests that the stronger the trait of conscientiousness in a Christian student, the higher their tolerance towards Muslim students. This positive correlation is confirmed by the data in Table 1, where participants\u0026apos; scores on both variables fall into the high and very high categories.\u0026nbsp;Individuals high in this trait typically exhibit characteristics such as being careful and thorough in their work, being controlled, organized, responsible, and having good self-discipline\u0026nbsp;(Goldberg, 1992).\u0026nbsp;These research findings diverge from prior research conducted by\u0026nbsp;Dhika (2015)\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Muhid (2020), which found no relationship between conscientiousness and religious tolerance. The difference in these research findings can be explained in two ways. Firstly, in terms of demographic factors, all participants in this study are Christian students. In the Indonesian context, especially in Surabaya where this research was conducted, Christians are a minority compared to Muslims\u0026nbsp;(BPS Surabaya, 2022).\u0026nbsp;This minority status may encourage Christian individuals to be more cautious and controlled in their interactions with other groups and to be more tolerant, especially towards Muslims, who are the majority group in Indonesia. Secondly, from a theological perspective, Christian teachings strive to respond to religious pluralism by promoting faith doctrines that are tolerant of differences\u0026nbsp;(Mangantibe \u0026amp; Taliwuna, 2021). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSixthly, the results in Table 2 indicate that there is no relationship between the trait of intellect and religious tolerance among Christian students towards Muslim students in Surabaya [\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = .04, \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = .85, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .05]. Therefore, minor hypothesis 5 (H\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) of this research is rejected. These research findings align with a previous study conducted by\u0026nbsp;Dhika (2015)\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;but differ from the findings of Muhid (2020). Conceptually, individuals with the personality trait of intellect, or what can also be referred to as openness to experience, are imaginative, creative, highly curious, liberal, artistic, enjoy challenges, and have broad perspectives\u0026nbsp;(Goldberg, 1992).\u0026nbsp;The absence of a correlation between openness to experience and religious tolerance in this research may be due to differences in the interpretation of the trait of openness to experience. On one hand, high openness to experience may encourage individuals to be more open and to learn about other religions. However, on the other hand, religious matters and beliefs are currently viewed as sensitive topics for open discussion in Indonesian society\u0026nbsp;(Kurniawan, 2018),\u0026nbsp;especially among minority religious groups, which were the participants in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeventhly, Table 2 shows that there is no relationship between the trait of emotional stability and religious tolerance among Christian students toward Muslim students in Surabaya [\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = .04, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(401) = 1.05, \u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt;.05]. Therefore, minor hypothesis 6 (H\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e) in this research is rejected. These research results align with the findings of Muhid (2020) but differ from those of Dhika (2015). Data in Table 2 indicates that emotional stability is negatively correlated with intrinsic religious orientation, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while it is positively correlated with intellect. The absence of a correlation between these two variables may be due to inconsistent correlations between emotional stability and the context of religious tolerance. On one hand, in interactions with other groups, individuals with the personality trait of emotional stability, or what is commonly referred to as neuroticism, tend to be anxious, tense, easily agitated, sensitive, exhibit negative moods, be self-pitying, emotional, and susceptible to stress (Goldberg, 1992). However, on the other hand, in the context of religious tolerance, individuals with high emotional stability are more likely to display positive behaviors aimed at avoiding conflict with the goal of reaching a consensus without causing new conflicts (Anwar, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations and Implications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough this research findings indicate the role of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness in explaining religious tolerance among minority religious groups towards the majority in Surabaya, there are several limitations to this study. First, methodologically, this research employed a cross-sectional survey design. Therefore, the results may not entirely demonstrate causality or the influence of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits on religious tolerance. Second, the study focused more on the antecedents of tolerance from personal factors, namely intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits. Despite the significant effect size of the personal factors investigated in this study, future research could explore the impact of cultural-theological and institutional factors on religious tolerance, as proposed by Sumaktoyo (2017). Third, this study focused on identity-based interactions between Christian students and Muslim students, in Surabaya, Indonesia. As a result, the findings may not be entirely applicable to a wider population across diverse religious groups and various social contexts. Future researchers could consider recruiting participants from a more diverse population beyond students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are several theoretical implications of this research that demonstrate the role of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) in explaining religious tolerance among minority religious groups towards the majority. First, this research encourages a more comprehensive understanding of religious tolerance. In this context, the involvement of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality characteristics can be essential elements in understanding the dynamics of interfaith interactions (Allport \u0026amp; Ross, 1967). Awareness of the role of personal factors can help facilitate more effective interfaith dialogue and build a better understanding among religious groups. However, it is important to recognize the complexity of religious tolerance which involves various personal and situational factors that interact to form an individual\u0026apos;s level of tolerance toward other religious groups (Saroglou, 2014; Witenberg, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research findings have practical implications as well. First, this research can serve as a basis for developing education and training programs aimed at improving religious tolerance among different religious groups. These programs can include a better understanding of intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits that support tolerance. Second, it emphasizes the importance of teaching religion which enhances a more intrinsic orientation to religiosity rather than extrinsic. Intrinsic religiosity orientation can be improved through religious teaching that allows for reflection, deep understanding, and the application of religious values in daily life (Cohen et al., 2017; Vazquez \u0026amp; McClure, 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp skip=\"true\"\u003eThis study concludes that individual dispositional factors, including intrinsic religious orientation and personality traits, significantly contribute to explaining religious tolerance among Christian students towards their Muslim peers. Specifically, intrinsic religious orientation and three personality traits\u0026mdash;extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness\u0026mdash;positively influence religious tolerance. However, intellect and emotional stability do not demonstrate a significant impact on religious tolerance. o enhance intrinsic religious orientation, it is recommended that religious education provided by parents, educators, and religious leaders prioritize the internalization of religious values on a personal level. This approach aims to foster religious harmony and tolerance within diverse societies. In future research, it would be prudent to investigate additional variables that influence religious tolerance and to analyse research subjects from diverse religious beliefs and backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Surabaya (Reference Number: 025/KE/IC/2021). All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp skip=\"true\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Conflicting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp skip=\"true\"\u003eThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp skip=\"true\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp skip=\"true\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrcid iD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarselius Sampe Tondok\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cimg width=\"11\" height=\"11\" src=\"\" alt=\"File:ORCID iD.svg - Wikimedia Commons\"\u003ehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7255-5350\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAderibigbe, S. A., Idriz, M., Alzouebi, K., AlOthman, H., Hamdi, W. B., \u0026amp; Companioni, A. A. (2023). Fostering tolerance and respect for diversity through the fundamentals of Islamic education. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020212\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl Fariz, A. B., \u0026amp; Saloom, G. (2021a). Religious tolerance measurement: Validity Test in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eJP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Indonesia)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67\u0026ndash;78. http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v10i1.16482\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl Fariz, A. B., \u0026amp; Saloom, G. (2021b). The effect of intellectual humility, multicultural personality, and religious orientation toward religious tolerance on students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. \u003cem\u003ePsikis: Jurnal Psikologi Islami\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.19109/psikis.v7i1.6524\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl Qurtuby, S. (2023). Beyond liberal peace: Religious violence and tactical peacebuilding in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asian Security and International Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;168. https://doi.org/10.1177/23477970231173525\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllport, G. W., \u0026amp; Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 432\u0026ndash;443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAltemeyer, B., \u0026amp; Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for the Psychology of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAltınoğlu, E. (2018). Religious commitment or a textualist-traditionalist understanding of Islam? The impact of religious orientations upon social tolerance in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(5), 695\u0026ndash;715. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2017.1330135\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnwar, Z. (2016). Resolusi konflik dalam perspektif kepribadian [Conflict resolution in the personality perspective]. \u003cem\u003eSeminar ASEAN: 2nd Psychology and Humanity\u003c/em\u003e, 610\u0026ndash;615.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArdi, R., Tobing, D. H., Agustina, G. N., Iswahyudi, A. F., \u0026amp; Budiarti, D. (2021). Religious schema and tolerance towards alienated groups in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(7), e07603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07603\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBebiroglu, N., van der Noll, J., \u0026amp; Roskam, I. (2017). Growing up in a diverse society: Adolescents\u0026rsquo; interest in parental religious socialization messages. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 288\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1286348\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBergner, R. M. (2020). What is personality? Two myths and a definition. \u003cem\u003eNew Ideas in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e, 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.100759\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlasi, A., Breskaya, O., \u0026amp; Giordan, G. (2023). Misconceptions of religious freedom: Toward an empirical study of religious rreedom awareness. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14081000\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBPS Surabaya. (2022). \u003cem\u003eBanyaknya pemeluk agama menurut jenisnya tahun \u0026nbsp;2017-2019 [The number of religious adherents by type year 2017-2019]\u003c/em\u003e. BPS Kota Surabaya. https://surabayakota.bps.go.id/indicator/108/129/1/banyaknya-pemeluk-agama-menurut-jenisnya.html\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2022). \u003cem\u003eStatistical yearbook of Indonesia 2022\u003c/em\u003e. BPS.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrandt, M. J., \u0026amp; Crawford, J. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 61, pp. 1\u0026ndash;66). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., \u0026amp; Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrandt, M. J., \u0026amp; Van Tongeren, D. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e(1), 76\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrown, R., \u0026amp; Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 37, pp. 255\u0026ndash;343). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChandra, J., Tondok, M. S., \u0026amp; Balgies, S. (2022). Indonesian students\u0026rsquo; prejudice against homosexuals: Religious fundamentalism and intergroup threat as predictors. \u003cem\u003eHumaniora\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 255\u0026ndash;264. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v13i3.8346\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, C. (2024). Mapping the terrain: A scoping review of empirical studies on the big five personality traits and QoL in China. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1335657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1335657\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoma, B. L., Jagayat, A., Hodson, G., \u0026amp; Turner, R. (2018). Prejudice in the wake of terrorism: The role of temporal distance, ideology, and intergroup emotions. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, A. B., Mazza, G. L., Johnson, K. A., Enders, C. K., Warner, C. M., Pasek, M. H., \u0026amp; Cook, J. E. (2017a). Theorizing and measuring religiosity across cultures. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1724\u0026ndash;1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727732\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, A. B., Mazza, G. L., Johnson, K. A., Enders, C. K., Warner, C. M., Pasek, M. H., \u0026amp; Cook, J. E. (2017b). Theorizing and measuring religiosity across cultures. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1724\u0026ndash;1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727732\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eStatistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCosta, P. T., \u0026amp; McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCronshaw, D. (2021). Finding common ground: Grassroots dialogue principles for interreligious learning at university. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Religious Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(1), 127\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-020-00128-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCuevas, J. A., \u0026amp; Dawson, B. L. (2021). An integrated review of recent research on the relationships between religious belief, political ideology, authoritarianism, and prejudice. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e124\u003c/em\u003e(3), 977\u0026ndash;1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120925392\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDhika, M. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePengaruh prasangka dan tipe kepribadian big five terhadap toleransi beragama pada anggota front pembela islam (FPI)[ The influence of prejudice and the Big Five personality types on religious tolerance among members of the Islamic Defenders Front]\u003c/em\u003e [Skripsi [Undergraduate Thesis]]. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDhont, K., \u0026amp; Van Hiel, A. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. \u003cem\u003eGroup Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 223\u0026ndash;237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391121\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuck, R. J., \u0026amp; Hunsberger, B. (1999). Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious proscription, right-wing. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for the Psychology of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 157\u0026ndash;179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0903_1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDudin, M. N., Protsenko, I. O., Frolova, Е. Е., Natalia, A. V., \u0026amp; Hokonov, A. A. (2018). Formation of religious tolerance among undergraduates in the multireligious environment of university. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Science and Theology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEzzy, D., Bouma, G., Barton, G., Halafoff, A., Banham, R., Jackson, R., \u0026amp; Beaman, L. (2020). Religious diversity in Australia: Rethinking social cohesion. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020092\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGorsuch, R. L., \u0026amp; McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 348. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386745\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreaves, L. M., Rasheed, A., D\u0026rsquo;Souza, S., Shackleton, N., Oldfield, L. D., Sibley, C. G., Milne, B., \u0026amp; Bulbulia, J. (2020). Comparative study of attitudes to religious groups in New Zealand reveals Muslim-specific prejudice. \u003cem\u003eKōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 260\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1733032\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGurin, P., Nagda, B. (Ratnesh) A., \u0026amp; Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga, X. (2013). \u003cem\u003eDialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue.\u003c/em\u003e Russell Sage Foundation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaehner, P., Bleidorn, W., \u0026amp; Hopwood, C. J. (2024). Examining individual differences in personality trait changes after negative life events. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 209\u0026ndash;224. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231156840\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., \u0026amp; Anderson, R. E. (2019). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e (Eighth edition). Cengage.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHassan, R. (2019). Why size matters: Majority/minority status and Muslim piety in South and Southeast Asia. \u003cem\u003eInternational Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 307\u0026ndash;326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580919835401\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHewstone, M., Clare, A., Newheiser, A. K., \u0026amp; Voci, A. (2011). Individual and situational predictors of religious prejudice: Impact of religion, social dominance orientation, intergroup contact, and mortality salience. \u003cem\u003eTPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 143\u0026ndash;155.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHodson, G., Dube, B., \u0026amp; Choma, B. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)?: Can (elaborated) imagined contact. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 123\u0026ndash;131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12281\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHughes, C. (2017). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding prejudice and education: The challenge for future generations\u003c/em\u003e (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315681672\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHunsberger, B., \u0026amp; Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, meaning, and prejudice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(4), 807\u0026ndash;826.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInderasari, A. P., Sampe Tondok, M., \u0026amp; Yudiarso, A. (2021). Prejudice against veiled Muslim women: The role of right-wing authoritarianism and intergroup anxiety. \u003cem\u003ePsikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v6i1.7483\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJASP Team. (2024). \u003cem\u003eJASP (Version 0.18.3)\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKamble, S. V., Watson, P. J., Marigoudar, S., \u0026amp; Chen, Z. (2014). Varieties of openness and religious commitment in India: Relationships of attitudes toward hinduism, hindu religious reflection, and religious schema. \u003cem\u003eArchive for the Psychology of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 172\u0026ndash;198. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341283\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKambo, G., \u0026amp; Yani, A. A. (2021). Political Identity and Religious Prejudice in a post-conflict society: A case study of Poso, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Southwest Jiaotong University\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 519\u0026ndash;527. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.56.3.43\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKanas, A., Scheepers, P., \u0026amp; Sterkens, C. (2017). Positive and negative contact and attitudes towards the religious out-group: Testing the contact hypothesis in conflict and non-conflict regions of Indonesia and the Philippines. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e, 95\u0026ndash;110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.019\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKenworthy, J. B., Voci, A., Ramiah, A. A., Tausch, N., Hughes, J., \u0026amp; Hewstone, M. (2016). Building trust in a postconflict society: An integrative model of cross-group friendship and intergroup emotions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Conflict Resolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1041\u0026ndash;1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714564427\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhakim, M. S., Sukanti, A. F., \u0026amp; Sarwedi, A. R. (2020). Kontribusi mahasiswa daerah dalam penaganan intoleransi melalui sinergi perguruan tinggi di DIY. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKlingenberg, M., \u0026amp; Sj\u0026ouml;, S. (2019). Theorizing religious socialization: A critical assessment. \u003cem\u003eReligion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(2), 163\u0026ndash;178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2019.1584349\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoenig, H. G., \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;ssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-Item measure for use in epidemological studies. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKossowska, M., Szwed, P., Czernatowicz-Kukuczka, A., Sekerdej, M., \u0026amp; Wyczesany, M. (2017). From threat to relief: Expressing prejudice toward atheists as a self-regulatory strategy protecting the religious orthodox from threat. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00873\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKunst, J. R., Sadeghi, T., Tahir, H., Sam, D., \u0026amp; Thomsen, L. (2016). The vicious circle of religious prejudice: Islamophobia makes the acculturation attitudes of majority and minority members clash: Islamophobia makes acculturation clash. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 249\u0026ndash;259. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKurniawan, B. (2018). Politisasi agama di tahun politik: Politik pasca-kebenaran di Indonesia dan ancaman bagi demokrasi. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Sosiologi Agama\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.14421/jsa.2018.121-07\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeong, C.-H., Lim, C., \u0026amp; Huang, H. Y. (Eds.). (2023). \u003cem\u003eConfident identities, connected communities: Building cohesion through shared experiences\u003c/em\u003e. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLubis, S. I., \u0026amp; Sianipar, A. (2022). How religious tolerance can emerge among religious people: An investigation on the roles of intellectual humility, cognitive flexibility, and trait aggressiveness. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 276\u0026ndash;287. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12493\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMajid, A. Ab. (2020). Reducing prejudice: The role of contact theory in inter-religious dialogue. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Research in Islamic and Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 37\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMakashvili, A., Vardanashvili, I., \u0026amp; Javakhishvili, N. (2018). Testing intergroup threat theory: Realistic and symbolic threats, religiosity and gender as predictors of prejudice. \u003cem\u003eEurope\u0026rsquo;s Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 464\u0026ndash;484. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1483\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMalović, N., \u0026amp; Vujica, K. (2021). Multicultural society as a challenge for coexistence in Europe. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(8), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080615\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMangantibe, V. Y., \u0026amp; Taliwuna, M. C. (2021). Toleransi beragama sebagai pendekatan misi kristen di Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Ilmiah Religiosity Entity Humanity (JIREH)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.37364/jireh.v3i1.56\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMann, F. D., Atherton, O. E., DeYoung, C. G., Krueger, R. F., \u0026amp; Robins, R. W. (2020). Big five personality traits and common mental disorders within a hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology: A longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e129\u003c/em\u003e(8), 769\u0026ndash;787. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000633\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMansouri, F., \u0026amp; Vergani, M. (2018). Intercultural contact, knowledge of Islam, and prejudice against muslims in Australia. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e, 85\u0026ndash;94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.07.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMatviyets, A. S., Veltri, G., \u0026amp; R\u0026uuml;pke, J. (2023). \u003cem\u003eTolerance and Intolerance in Religion and Beyond: Challenges from the Past and in the Present\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003082484\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCowan, T. (2017). Building bridges rather than walls: Research into an experiential model of interfaith education in secondary schools. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Religious Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 269\u0026ndash;278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2015.1128387\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeiza, A. (2018). Sikap toleransi dan tipe kepribadian big five pada mahasiswa UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. \u003cem\u003ePsympathic : Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.15575/psy.v5i1.1959\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeliana, Y., \u0026amp; Tondok, M. S. (2023). Prejudice toward Papuan Students: The role of intergroup anxiety, belief, contact quality, and social identity. \u003cem\u003eSosiohumaniora\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 257\u0026ndash;267. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v25i2.38300\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeuleman, B., Abts, K., Slootmaeckers, K., \u0026amp; Meeusen, C. (2019). Differentiated threat and the genesis of prejudice: Group-specific antecedents of homonegativity, islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant attitudes. \u003cem\u003eSocial Problems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e(2), 222\u0026ndash;244. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuhid, A. (2020). Religious tolerance among college students: How it\u0026rsquo;s influenced by religious orientation and personality traits? \u003cem\u003eHUMANITAS: Indonesian Psychological Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v17i1.12222\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMusbikin, I. (2021). \u003cem\u003ePendidikan karakter toleransi\u003c/em\u003e. Nusamedia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMustafa, M. T., \u0026amp; Khan, M. H. U. (2023). Promoting religious freedom in diverse societies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Policy Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 817\u0026ndash;821. https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00023\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMu\u0026rsquo;ti, A. (2023). Pluralistic Islamic religious education: A vision for Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eThe Review of Faith \u0026amp; International Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 121\u0026ndash;127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2023.2200280\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePettigrew, T. F., \u0026amp; Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrakoso, G. B., \u0026amp; Najicha, F. U. (2022). Pentingnya membangun rasa toleransi dan wawasan nusantara dalam bermasyarakat. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Global Citizen: Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePutra, I. E., \u0026amp; Wagner, W. (2017). Prejudice in interreligious context: The role of metaprejudice and majority-minority status. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Community \u0026amp; Applied Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 226\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2305\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePutra, I. E., Wagner, W., Holtz, P., \u0026amp; Rufaedah, A. (2021). Accounting for a riot: Religious identity, denying one\u0026rsquo;s prejudice, and the tool of blasphemy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Political Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5565\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRaihani. (2014). Creating a Culture of Religious Tolerance in an Indonesian School. \u003cem\u003eSouth East Asia Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 541\u0026ndash;560. https://doi.org/10.5367/sear.2014.0234\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRazpurker‐Apfeld, I., \u0026amp; Shamoa‐Nir, L. (2020). Imagined contact with strongly identified outgroup members: Do religious trappings make the man? \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 384\u0026ndash;396. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12412\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReimer, N. K., Kamble, S. V., Schmid, K., \u0026amp; Hewstone, M. (2020). Intergroup contact fosters more inclusive social identities. \u003cem\u003eGroup Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations\u003c/em\u003e, 136843022096079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220960795\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoberts, B. W., \u0026amp; Yoon, H. J. (2022). Personality Psychology. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e(1), 489\u0026ndash;516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114927\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Giess, M. E., Morin, S. M., Staples, B. A., Correia-Harker, B. P., \u0026amp; Associates. (2020). \u003cem\u003eIDEALS: Bridging religious divides through higher education\u003c/em\u003e. Interfaith Youth Core.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSabdin, M., \u0026amp; Ikhwan Izzat Zulkefli, M. (2023). The relationship between religious knowledge, religious personality and inter-ethnic tolerance among Malaysian undergraduate students. \u003cem\u003eKnE Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i20.14613\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaroglou, V. (Ed.). (2014). \u003cem\u003eReligion, Personality, and Social Behavior\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaroglou, V., Clobert, M., Cohen, A. B., Johnson, K. A., Ladd, K. L., Brandt, P.-Y., Murken, S., Mu\u0026ntilde;oz-Garc\u0026iacute;a, A., Adamovova, L., Blogowska, J., \u0026Ccedil;ukur, C. S., Hwang, K.-K., Miglietta, A., Motti-Stefanidi, F., Roussiau, N., \u0026amp; Valladares, J. T. (2020). Fundamentalism as dogmatic belief, moral rigorism, and strong groupness across cultures: Dimensionality, underlying components, and related interreligious prejudice. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Religion and Spirituality\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000339\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSidanius, J., \u0026amp; Pratto, F. (1999). \u003cem\u003eSocial dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSinclair, V. M., Topa, G., \u0026amp; Saklofske, D. (2020). Personality correlates of compassion: A cross-cultural analysis. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2423\u0026ndash;2432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01459-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS\u0026ouml;zer, \u0026Ouml;. T., \u0026amp; Eskin, M. (2023). Religiosity, Identity Confusion, and Psychological Well-Being in Turkish University Students: The Moderating Role of Religious Orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Religion and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(2), 984\u0026ndash;1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01625-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStreib, H., \u0026amp; Klein, C. (2014). Religious styles predict interreligious prejudice: A study of German adolescents with the religious schema scale. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 151\u0026ndash;163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2013.808869\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSulistio, S., Suryanto, S., Hadziq, A., \u0026amp; Bulut, S. (2020). The mediating effect of group identity and religious fundamentalism on the association of intergroup contact with prejudice. \u003cem\u003ePsikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 169\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v5i2.6486\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSumaktoyo, N. G. (2017). Penelitian empiris mengenai toleransi di Indonesia: Menuju praktik terbaik [The empirical study on tolerance in Indonesia: Towards best practices]. In I. Ali-Fauzi, Z. A. Bagir, \u0026amp; I. Rafsadi (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eKebebasan, toleransi dan terorisme: Riset dan kebijakan agama di Indonesia [Freedom, tolerance, and terrorism: Research and religious policy in Indonesia]\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 159\u0026ndash;192). Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi Yayasan Parmamadina.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSuminta, R. R. (2017). Hubungan antara tipe kepribadian dengan orientasi religiusitas [The relationship between personality type and religious orientation]. \u003cem\u003eFIKRAH\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 214. https://doi.org/10.21043/fikrah.v4i2.1884\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTahir, H., R\u0026oslash;nningsdalen Kunst, J., \u0026amp; Lackland Sam, D. (2019). Threat, anti-western hostility and violence among european muslims: The mediating role of acculturation. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e, 74\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.08.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., \u0026amp; Ardi, R. (2022). Intervention program to reduce religious prejudice in education settings: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040299\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., \u0026amp; Ardi, R. (2024). Validation of the general evaluation scale for measuring ethnic and religious prejudice in an Indonesian sample. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVan Tongeren, D. R., Hakim, S., Hook, J. N., Johnson, K. A., Green, J. D., Hulsey, T. L., \u0026amp; Davis, D. E. (2016). Toward an understanding of religious tolerance: Quest religiousness and positive attitudes toward teligiously dissimilar others. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 212\u0026ndash;224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2015.1039417\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVazquez, B., \u0026amp; McClure, K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eExtrinsic/Intrinsic Religious Orientation: A Moderator Between Religiosity and Prejudice in Christian and Muslim College Students\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2600f7b6454aad6049c278581919daed8b0a83b3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., \u0026amp; Adelman, L. (2019). Intergroup toleration and its implications for culturally diverse societies: Intergroup toleration. \u003cem\u003eSocial Issues and Policy Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12051\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., \u0026amp; Adelman, L. (2023). The social psychology of intergroup tolerance and intolerance. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2091326\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWijaya Mulya, T., \u0026amp; Sch\u0026auml;fer, S. (2023). Who belongs where? Geographies of (inter)religion and urban segregation in Surabaya, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e141\u003c/em\u003e, 104476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104476\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWitenberg, R. T. (2019). \u003cem\u003eThe psychology of tolerance: Conception and development\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3789-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYafie, M. F., Solicha, \u0026amp; Syahid, A. (2020). Muslim prejudice: Study of the effects of religiosity, fundamentalism, religious quest, and social domination orientation. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Islam, Science and Technology (ICONIST 2019)\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200220.017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYendell, A., \u0026amp; Huber, S. (2020). The relevance of the centrality and content of religiosity for explaining islamophobia in Switzerland. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11030129\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZainiddinov, H. (2024). The explanatory role of religious identity, practices and beliefs in perceived discrimination among Muslim American racial/ethnic groups. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-09-2023-0238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Universitas Surabaya","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Christian youth, interreligious relations, multicultural society, personality traits, religious tolerance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn a pluralistic religious society, fostering religious tolerance is crucial for promoting understanding and respecting differing perspectives. Various personal factors that influence religious tolerance include religious orientation and personality type. This study examined the relationship between intrinsic religiosity orientation, personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect, and emotional stability), and religious tolerance among Christian students toward their Muslim peers. Using a cross-sectional survey design with quota-accidental sampling techniques, 402 Christian students, aged 18\u0026ndash;24, and enrolled in Christian-affiliated, public, and multicultural universities in Surabaya, participated in this study. Data collection utilized three scales: the Religious Orientation Scale, Religious Tolerance Scale, and IPIP-BFM-25. Through multiple linear regression analysis, the study demonstrates that both intrinsic religiosity orientation and personality traits significantly influence religious tolerance [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6,401)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;68.140, \u003cem\u003eAdj. R\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.501, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001]. Partial analysis indicates that both intrinsic religiosity orientation and certain personality traits, including extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, exert a significant influence on religious tolerance. In contrast, personality traits linked to intellect and emotional stability demonstrate no significant correlation. These insights provide valuable guidance for fostering religious harmony within diverse societies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Unveiling Religious Tolerance among Indonesian Christian Youth: How Do Personality Traits and Intrinsic Religiosity Orientation Matter?","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-04 06:22:46","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6783239/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"90781bc1-9a77-450b-86c7-e918ad5adecc","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":49279276,"name":"Religious Studies"},{"id":49279277,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-04T06:22:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-04 06:22:46","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6783239","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6783239","identity":"rs-6783239","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}